Case law

Rankel v. County of Westchester

135 A.D.3d 731 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jan 13, 2016

State officials are entitled to qualified immunity under 42 USC § 1983 for discretionary functions if either (1) their conduct did not violate clearly established constitutional rights, or (2) it was objectively reasonable … for them to believe that their acts did not violate clearly established rights (see Doe ex rel.

David Jones v. Clark Cty., Ky.

959 F.3d 748 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · May 18, 2020

Unless the law was clearly established at the time the action occurred, the government official will receive qualified immunity and be insulated from civil suit. Id. … To rebut qualified immunity, Jones must prove that Murray violated a constitutional right and that this right was clearly established. Wesby, 138 S. Ct. at 589.

Conner v. Heiman

672 F.3d 1126 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Mar 9, 2012

We further hold that Heiman and Neil did not violate clearly established rights by arresting Conner. … HEIMAN 2757 clearly established, the Supreme Court has specified that the application of that requirement must be clearly established in a particularized context. Saucier, 533 U.S. at 202.

Morgan v. Bubar

115 Conn. App. 603 · Connecticut Appellate Court · Jul 14, 2009

The defendants argue that Carini and Castronova are entitled to qualified immunity because they did not violate a clearly established constitutional right. … “When [a motion for summary judgment] is based on assertion of qualified immunity, the first issue is whether a clearly established right is at stake. ...

Morgan v. Morgensen

465 F.3d 1041 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Oct 6, 2006

Whether the Constitutional Right was Clearly Established [7] We proceed to the second qualified immunity inquiry: whether that right was clearly established. … A prison official is not entitled to qualified immunity if the law governing his conduct was clearly established such that a reasonable prison official would know that his conduct was unlawful.

Housley v. Holquist

879 F. Supp. 2d 472 · District Court, D. Maryland · Aug 30, 2011

The Housleys bear the burden of proving the violation of a constitutional right, but the Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity if they prove that the right was not clearly established. See Wilson v. … Finally, the Court will not revisit the qualified immunity issue at trial.

Timmon v. Wood

633 F. Supp. 2d 453 · District Court, W.D. Michigan · Apr 21, 2008

Applying those clearly established rules to this case, the dispositive issue with respect to qualified immunity is whether Defendants acted with the intent to silence Plaintiff’s viewpoint or whether they acted with the intent … If Defendants acted with intent to silence Plaintiffs viewpoint then they violated clearly established law and would not be entitled to qualified immunity.

Rosenthal v. County of Madison

339 Mont. 419 · Montana Supreme Court · Oct 23, 2007

“The doctrine of qualified immunity operates to shield government officials performing discretionary functions from liability for civil damages when their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … Moreover, even if we were to speculate with Rosenthal that new evidence would establish that Zenker’s conduct was entitled to qualified immunity rather than absolute immunity, he does not show how he will pierce the qualified

DONALD M v. Matava

668 F. Supp. 703 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jan 30, 1987

QUALIFIED AND ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY 1. … to qualified immunity.

Carter v. Diamond URS Huntsville, LLC

175 F. Supp. 3d 711 · District Court, S.D. Texas · Mar 30, 2016

“The ‘clearly established’ standard does not mean that official’s conduct is protected by qualified immunity unless ‘the very action in question has previously been held unlawful.’” … The officer is “entitled to qualified immunity if his or her conduct was objectively reasonable in light of the legal rules that were clearly established at the time of his or her actions,” even if the conduct violated the

Derek Westwater v. Kevin Church

60 F.4th 1124 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Feb 23, 2023

Alternatively, the court ruled that Church was entitled to qualified immunity on the federal § 1983 claim because any constitutional violation was not clearly established. Westwater appeals. … In these circumstances, summary judgment should not be granted on either qualified immunity issue, whether the force used was reasonable and, if not, whether the violation was clearly established.

Altovese Williams v. City of Burlington, Iowa

27 F.4th 1346 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Mar 9, 2022

Chiprez appeals the denial of qualified immunity. This court affirms. … The doctrine of qualified immunity protects public officials from personal liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable

Belinda Marie Fitzpatrick v. Kyle Hanney

138 F.4th 991 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · May 30, 2025

Qualified immunity shields government officials from suit unless those officials (1) violated a constitutional right that (2) was clearly established when the conduct occurred. Bell v. … Because the undisputed facts do not show that Simon plausibly violated Fitzpatrick’s clearly established rights, Simon is entitled to qualified immunity on Fitzpatrick’s Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment claims.

Douglas W. Schwenk v. James Hartford Steve Sinclair Robert Mitchell,opinion

204 F.3d 1187 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Feb 29, 2000

This satisfies the first part of the “analytical framework” for determining qualified immunity established in Siegert . … Was the Law Clearly Established?

Bustillos v. El Paso County Hospital District

226 F. Supp. 3d 778 · District Court, W.D. Texas · Jun 6, 2016

Here, the Court finds the second qualified immunity prong dispositive. … The second prong of the qualified immunity analysis requires the Court to decide whether it is “clearly established” that medical personnel must have their own independent reasonable suspicion before searching a detained

Van Lee Brewer v. Jason Simental

Texas Court of Appeals, 7th District (Amarillo) · Oct 15, 2010

defendants and, therefore, the defendants were entitled to qualified immunity. … Those governmental officials are entitled to qualified immunity "insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known." Id.

Blakely v. Andrade

360 F. Supp. 3d 453 · District Court, N.D. Texas · Jan 23, 2019

If the court answers both the constitutional violation and clearly established questions in the affirmative, the officer is not entitled to qualified immunity. Lytle , 560 F.3d at 410 . … For purposes of qualified immunity, "clearly established" means that the "contours of the right" are "sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that right."

Jacob Clark v. Bernadette Stone

998 F.3d 287 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · May 19, 2021

They also argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity on this issue because there is no clearly established right to use corporal punishment on children. … App’x 469, 481 (6th Cir. 2019) (“A single district court opinion is not enough to pronounce a right is clearly established for purposes of qualified immunity.”)

United States Ex Rel. Vaughn v. United Biologics, L.L.C.

907 F.3d 187 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Oct 16, 2018

Univ., 171 F.3d 279, 290–94 (5th Cir. 1999) (holding that Eleventh Amendment immunity was not waived on this basis). … But this principle of interpretation, known as the “Series-Qualifier Canon,” applies only when context clearly establishes that it is intended. Reading Law at 147–51.

Schifanelli v. Loveday

District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 31, 2026

Qualified immunity “Government officials enjoy qualified immunity from suit under [Section] 1983 unless their conduct violates clearly established law.” Zorn v. Linton, No. 25-297, 2026 WL 795469, at *2 (U.S. … June 9, 2025) (denying a motion for summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity in a case that did not involve a drug-sniffing dog because Rodriguez is clearly established law).