Case law

Ahmad v. Department of Correction

446 Mass. 479 · Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · Apr 7, 2006

In January, 2003, the defendants moved for summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds. The motion was denied without prejudice to permit sufficient discovery regarding the applicability of qualified immunity. … Consequently, the defendants are entitled to the protections of qualified immunity. Conclusion.

Hudson v. Maloney

326 F. Supp. 2d 206 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jul 23, 2004

Qualified immunity attaches to discretionary conduct of government officials that “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. … Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 528 , 105 S.Ct. 2806 , 86 L.Ed.2d 411 (1985) (officers immune unless their actions were “clearly proscribed” by established law).

Penilla v. City of Huntington Park

115 F.3d 707 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jun 6, 1997

Because the officers have moved for qualified immunity on a motion to dismiss, we decide only whether defendants’ alleged conduct violated clearly established constitutional rights. Todd v. … The officers argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity because there is no clearly established constitutional right to emergency medical care for persons not in custody and because there is no clearly established

Steven Bangs v. Walter William Smith

84 F.4th 87 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Oct 12, 2023

Geraci, Judge) dismissing his complaint on the grounds that Defendants were entitled to qualified immunity because Bangs’s rights in this context were not clearly established. … For purposes of qualified immunity, “[w]hether the law was sufficiently clearly established is . . . an issue of law that we consider de novo.” Outlaw v. City of Hartford, 884 F.3d 351, 366 (2d Cir. 2018).

McMillian v. Johnson

88 F.3d 1554 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jul 9, 1996

The issue for qualified immunity purposes, however, is not whether the due process right not to be punished before conviction was clearly established. … Clearly Established Law Prohibited Police' Suppression of Exculpatory and Impeachment Evidence Tate, Ikner, and Benson are protected by qualified immunity unless their actions violated clearly established law.

Austin Webster v. Saint Louis County

135 F.4th 614 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Apr 24, 2025

In the alternative, the district court concluded that Lemke was entitled to qualified immunity because her action did not violate a clearly established right. Webster also sued Lemke and St. … A government official is entitled to qualified immunity from suit unless the official’s conduct violated a clearly established right of which a reasonable official would have known. Harlow v.

Katrina McGrew v. Sergeant Duncan

937 F.3d 664 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Sep 4, 2019

Qualified immunity shields the officers from suit if (1) they did not violate any of McGrew’s constitutional rights or (2) the violated rights, if any, were not “clearly established” when they acted. Pearson v. … So whether they are entitled to qualified immunity turns on whether McGrew suffered an injury and whether the right she claims they violated was clearly established when they acted.

Anselmo v. County of Shasta

873 F. Supp. 2d 1247 · District Court, E.D. California · Jun 8, 2012

“[Qualified immunity protects government officials ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person should have … If a right is clearly established, a public official is granted qualified immunity only if a reasonable official would not have known that his conduct violated the clearly established right. See id.

Creech Poole v. City of Shreveport

13 F.4th 420 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Sep 10, 2021

Qualified immunity shields officers from liability unless their conduct violates a clearly established federal right of which a reasonable person would have known. Kisela v. Hughes, 138 S. … of clearly established law.

Tortes v. King County

119 Wash. App. 1 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Jun 2, 2003

These individual public officials are immune from personal liability under the doctrine of qualified immunity. … It is preferred that a defendant’s entitlement to qualified immunity be decided as a matter of law on summary judgment. 19 The central purpose of qualified immunity is to protect public officials from interference with their

Mihos v. Swift

358 F.3d 91 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Feb 13, 2004

For a plaintiff to overcome a qualified immunity defense, he must show that his allegations, if true, establish a constitutional violation; that the right was clearly established; and that a reasonable official would have … Under Wood, then, a plaintiff could usually avoid an adverse pre-trial qualified immunity ruling by merely alleging (1) a constitutional violation (2) of clearly established law (3) by a public official

Harris v. Eichbaum

642 F. Supp. 1056 · District Court, D. Maryland · Sep 2, 1986

If the law was clearly established, the immunity defense ordinarily should fail, since a reasonably competent public official should know the law governing his conduct____ By defining the limits of qualified immunity essentially … Forsyth that: “Unless the plaintiff’s allegations state a claim of violation of clearly established law, a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal before the commencement of discovery.

James P. Crocker v. Deputy Sheriff Steven Eric Beatty

995 F.3d 1232 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Apr 20, 2021

The district court held that Beatty was entitled to qualified immunity because the law underlying Crocker’s First Amendment claim wasn’t clearly established. We agree. … In my view, Smith clearly establishes that Mr. Crocker had a right to photograph the accident scene and I would therefore reverse the grant of qualified immunity to Deputy Beatty on this claim.

Ewy v. Sturtevant

962 P.2d 991 · Colorado Court of Appeals · Jun 25, 1998

conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. … In determining the applicability of qualified immunity, the court need not decide whether specific actions of the officials were unconstitutional, but merely whether the conduct was so clearly unconstitutional that any reasonable

Turner v. Perry

278 S.W.3d 806 · Texas Court of Appeals, 14th District (Houston) · Feb 26, 2009

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity protects governmental officials performing discretionary functions frpm suit if their actions were objectively reasonable in the light of then clearly-established law. Anderson v. … Appellants contend that they nevertheless are entitled to qualified immunity because they did not violate a clearly established right protecting Perry’s speech.

ND Indoor RV Park v. State

2025 ND 92 · North Dakota Supreme Court · May 8, 2025

Wishnatsky, at 401. [¶18] Wagendorf and Nelson are protected by qualified immunity unless the Park “pleads facts showing (1) that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was clearly … A constitutional right is “clearly established” if the “contours of the right [are] sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that right.

McGrew v. Duncan

333 F. Supp. 3d 730 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Aug 10, 2018

Government officials are entitled to qualified immunity where their actions do not "violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known." Greene v. … This right was "clearly established" for qualified immunity purposes at the time McGrew was placed in handcuffs. Id. (citation omitted).

Wiggins v. Greiner

132 F. App'x 861 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · May 18, 2005

Wiggins submits that the highlighted language in Roberts clearly establishes that prosecution efforts to locate a witness must be “undertaken prior to trial” to demonstrate good-faith. … Whether the challenged photo display in this case clearly qualifies as a confirmatory identification is an issue of state law not relevant to our habeas review. See Estelle v.

City of Akron v. Brown

122 N.E.3d 672 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Nov 7, 2018

(Emphasis added.) {¶ 8} The plain language of R.C. 2925.11(B)(2)(b) clearly provides qualified individuals with immunity for a minor drug possession offense pursuant to R.C. Chapter 2925. … Brown had qualified for immunity and, consequently, dismissal of a charge for minor drug possession, any allied offenses would not "merge" for that purpose and there would be no grounds to extend immunity or dismiss any charges

Reece v. Groose

60 F.3d 487 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jul 20, 1995

was clearly established. 9 On the other side of the line is Anderson v. … Qualified immunity shields government officials from civil lawsuits when "their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known." Harlow v.