Case law

Perry v. Greanias

95 S.W.3d 683 · Texas Court of Appeals, 1st District (Houston) · Dec 27, 2002

Government officials performing discretionary functions have qualified immunity from liability for actions that do not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have … in light of the clearly established rights.

Mildred Robinson v. Daniel Arrugueta

415 F.3d 1252 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jul 7, 2005

The court found, however, that under the second step the right violated was not clearly established and thus Arrugueta was entitled to qualified immunity. … established, and thus, Arrugueta is entitled to qualified immunity under this step as well.

Lee v. Tucker

904 F.3d 1145 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Sep 24, 2018

Defendants moved for summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity. … clearly established at the time of the conduct at issue" (quotation and alteration omitted)).

Michael Washington v. City of Cincinnati

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 13, 2026

Because Washington’s protected property interest was not “clearly established,” Long’s claim of qualified immunity prevails. A. How to recognize a clearly established right is well understood. … Rather than awarding qualified immunity unless it was obvious that Long violated Washington’s clearly established rights, the majority opinion would deny qualified immunity unless it was obvious that Long did not do so.

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).

Chad J. Alvarado v. Jon E. Litscher, Secretary, Jane Gamble, B. McCreedy

267 F.3d 648 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Sep 28, 2001

Qualified immunity protects government officials from civil liability when performing discretionary functions so long as “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … To overcome a defense of qualified immunity, the plaintiff must first allege the deprivation of an actual constitutional right, and second, show that the right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation.

Cameron Lewis v. Kevin Caraballo

98 F.4th 521 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Apr 15, 2024

We now turn to the second prong of the qualified-immunity analysis, “whether the [constitutional or statutory] violation was of a ‘clearly established’ right.” Valladares v. … established law for purposes of adjudging entitlement to qualified immunity.’”)

People of Michigan v. Richard Lee Hartwick

Michigan Supreme Court · Jul 27, 2015

not be set aside unless clearly erroneous. … required to establish immunity.

Atteberry v. Nocona General Hospital

430 F.3d 245 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Nov 3, 2005

clearly established law.” … Objectively Unreasonable “To be ‘clearly established’ for purposes of qualified immunity, ‘[t]he contours of the right must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates

Brown v. Flowers

974 F.3d 1178 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Sep 14, 2020

Because we find our existing caselaw on the sexual abuse of inmates clearly established the contours of Brown’s rights, we affirm the denial of qualified immunity. … Under that standard, we must grant Flowers qualified immunity unless “(1) a reasonable jury could find facts supporting a violation of a constitutional right, which (2) was clearly established at the time of [Flowers’s

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).

Morse v. Cloutier

869 F.3d 16 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Aug 25, 2017

Accordingly, we proceed to the next step of the qualified immunity paradigm and consider whether the applicable law was so clearly established that no reasonable officer would have entered the plaintiffs' home without … Payton and its progeny clarify a matter of Fourth Amendment law that Joyce, which relied on the "clearly established" prong of the qualified immunity paradigm, left

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

Stephen L. Bartlett v. Colonel C.E. Fisher Captain S.T. Davis

972 F.2d 911 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Aug 13, 1992

Under this objective standard, public officials are entitled to qualified immunity when their “conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. … The district court denied their qualified immunity motion because defendants’ motive in disciplining Bartlett is a disputed issue of fact and the law is “clearly established” that a public employee may not be disciplined

Freeman v. Fallin

422 F. Supp. 2d 53 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 3, 2006

Qualified immunity “shield[s officials] from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … contain hidden, and at the time unexpounded, constitutional roadblocks. 9 Accordingly, the plaintiffs’ Fourth Amendment right was not clearly established, Butera, 235 F.3d at 646 , and these defendants are entitled to qualified

Pacherille v. Burns

30 F. Supp. 3d 159 · District Court, N.D. New York · Jul 3, 2014

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity > generally protects governmental officials from civil liability “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … However, even if the constitutional privileges “are so clearly defined that a reasonable public official would know that his actions might violate those rights, qualified ... immunity might still be available ... if it was

Konop v. Northwestern School District

26 F. Supp. 2d 1189 · District Court, D. South Dakota · Nov 10, 1998

Qualified immunity protects state actors from civil liability when ‘their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable *1196 person would have known.’ … qualified immunity.

Saleem v. Snow

217 Ga. App. 883 · Court of Appeals of Georgia · Jul 14, 1995

Qualified immunity shields state officials from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate *886 clearly established federal law of which a reasonable person would have known. Harlow v. … These include his claims that qualified immunity was improperly granted because it is clearly established that (1) he has a right to be fairly considered for parole; (2) rules prohibiting actions must provide adequate notice

Sinn v. Lemmon

911 F.3d 412 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Dec 14, 2018

Qualified immunity is an affirmative defense, and once raised, the plaintiff bears the burden of defeating it by showing: (1) the defendant violated a constitutional right, and (2) that right was clearly established at the … It is well-settled, clearly established law that such a failure constitutes deliberate indifference. See id. at 484-85 (rejecting a qualified immunity defense).

Ronald A. Mahers v. Charles Harper Ken Wittry Ronald Welder Paul W. Grossheim

12 F.3d 783 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Feb 1, 1994

Defendants argue that even if the due process violation found by the state court is taken as a given, the right violated was not clearly established, and therefore they are entitled to qualified immunity. We agree. … In proceeding under Rule 9, defendants acted in an objectively reasonable manner, and they'did not violate any clearly established constitutional right. They are entitled to qualified immunity.