Case law

Cottone v. Jenne

326 F.3d 1352 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Apr 11, 2003

[u]nless 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.” Id. … The Supreme Court has established a two-part test to determine the applicability of qualified immunity.

Miller v. Gammie

335 F.3d 889 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jul 9, 2003

a complaining witness in presenting a judge with a supporting affidavit to establish probable cause for an arrest. … We must now recognize that beyond those functions historically recognized as absolutely immune at common law, qualified and only qualified immunity exists.

Robert Saterdalen v. James Spencer

725 F.3d 838 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Aug 5, 2013

Qualified immunity shields government officials from liability and the burdens of litigation in a § 1983 suit unless the official’s conduct violates a clearly established constitutional or statutory right of which a reasonable … The question of qualified immunity thus “generally turns on the ‘objective legal reasonableness’ of the [official’s] action, assessed in light of the legal rules that were ‘clearly established’ at the time it was taken.”

DeNucci v. Henningsen

248 Or. App. 59 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Feb 8, 2012

of ORS 162.257 was not clearly established, so he was entitled to qualified immunity. … Despite the lack of probable cause for the arrest, however, Henningsen is still entitled to qualified immunity if plaintiffs right not to be arrested for her conduct was not “clearly established” at the time.

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.

Herrera v. City of Albuquerque

589 F.3d 1064 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Dec 14, 2009

O’Brien [wa]s entitled to qualified immunity and [thus was] immune from suit.” Id. at 120. … Qualified immunity “The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional

Deputy v. City of Seymour

34 F. Supp. 3d 925 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Jul 21, 2014

Under the circumstances presented here, the Court considers it most prudent to proceed to the second question regarding qualified immunity — whether the right at issue was clearly established at the time of the violation. … First, in the context of qualified immunity, the Seventh Circuit has emphasized “[i]mportantly, the right must be clearly established in a particularized sense, rather than in an abstract or general sense.”

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

Henderson v. Baird

29 F.3d 464 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jul 14, 1994

They are entitled to qualified immunity unless their conduct violates “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. … The magistrate judge went on to deny qualified immunity on the substantive due process claim because the law was clearly established “that substantive due process required that at least some evidence was needed to support

Marvin v. City of Taylor

509 F.3d 234 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Dec 4, 2007

In other words, qualified immunity need only be granted if there is a violation of a constitutional right, but that right was not clearly established at the time the official violated it. … If, and only if, the force used was objectively unreasonable should the Court consider qualified immunity and address the second question: whether the right violated was clearly established. B.

Grantham v. Trickey

21 F.3d 289 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Apr 12, 1994

balancing test, it can rarely be considered “clearly established” for purposes of the Harlow qualified immunity standard.... ... … We then addressed the city council members’ assertion of qualified immunity and concluded that qualified immunity was not appropriate because Casey’s right of free speech was clearly established. Id. at 804.

Alexys Sherry Parker v. Officer Adam Chard

777 F.3d 977 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jan 29, 2015

Qualified immunity shields public officials performing discretionary functions from liability for conduct that “‘does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have … To overcome qualified immunity, a plaintiff must demonstrate that (1) there was a deprivation of a constitutional or statutory right, and (2) the right was clearly established at the time of the deprivation.

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.

Zaragoza v. Board of Johnson County Comm'rs

Supreme Court of Kansas · Jun 27, 2025

Second, she claims that even if the library itself is a qualifying property, the immunity exception does not apply to the parking lot because granting immunity to areas "integral" to the function of a qualifying property … For example, the public library's StoryWalk would qualify for recreational use immunity if it was hosted outdoors but would not qualify for immunity if it was hosted indoors.

Rippy v. Hattaway

270 F.3d 416 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Nov 2, 2001

When a defendant asserts qualified immunity in the face of a claim under § 1983, the plaintiff bears an additional burden of pleading facts that, if taken as true, establish not only the violation of his rights, but also … While the promulgation and enforcement of procedures is a conceivable basis for a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff overcomes a qualified immunity defense only by identifying a particularized, clearly established right that

Jefferson v. Lewis

594 F.3d 454 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Feb 4, 2010

Qualified Immunity 1. … of qualified immunity.

Corona v. City of Clovis

959 F.3d 1278 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · May 27, 2020

5 clearly established at the relevant time. … Specifically, when a defendant raises the qualified- immunity defense at summary judgment, the plaintiff must establish (1) the defendant violated a statutory or constitutional right and (2) that right was clearly established

Joseph Watson v. Patrick Pearson

928 F.3d 507 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 28, 2019

Qualified immunity The doctrine of 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 … In sum, the officers are not entitled to qualified immunity because they violated Watson's constitutional rights and because those rights were clearly established when the incident occurred.

Summerville v. City of Forest Park

195 Ohio App. 3d 13 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jul 15, 2011

Qualified Immunity {¶17} Qualified immunity shields a government official from civil liability unless (1) the official violated a statutory or constitutional right and (2) that right was “clearly established” at … Moreover, she failed to demonstrate that they were not entitled to qualified immunity. {¶34} Therefore, we hold that Pape and Hall are entitled to qualified immunity on Summerville’s Section 1983 claims against them

Daniels Sharpsmart, Inc. v. Karen Smith

889 F.3d 608 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · May 2, 2018

In determining whether qualified immunity applies, courts “must determine whether: (1) the facts adduced constitute the violation of a constitutional right; and (2) the constitutional right was clearly established at the … It is that rock upon which the district court’s qualified immunity decision founders. The district court was satisfied that, as it said, “[t]he extraterritorialty doctrine has been clearly established for decades.”