Case law

Albright v. Rodriguez

51 F.3d 1531 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Apr 7, 1995

Defendant contends he was entitled to summary judgment based on qualified immunity because Plaintiff failed to show he violated clearly established law. … Further, a defendant is entitled to qualified immunity if the plaintiff fails to show that the law was clearly established. See, e.g., Pallottino v.

Jacqueline Abel, Cross-Appellants v. Harold Miller, Cross-Appellees

824 F.2d 1522 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jul 21, 1987

On the issue of qualified immunity, the district judge stated: “I have thrown it out.” Id. at 1645. “I think there is a clearly established right ... [w]ith respect to all of the claims.” Id. at 1646. … We recently explained: [The Harlow qualified immunity] test would have little bite if a right “clearly established” at any level of generality could survive it.

McKinnon v. Gardner

Connecticut Appellate Court · Apr 28, 2026

That qualified immunity “protects government officials performing discretionary functions from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of … “[A] claim for qualified immunity from liability Albert, 50 Conn.

Gary Austin v. Fletcher Long

779 F.3d 522 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Feb 23, 2015

Long moved for summary judgment based on qualified immunity. … Long is not entitled to qualified immunity if Austin establishes that Long violated his clearly established constitutional rights. See Nelson v. Shuffman, 603 F.3d 439, 446 (8th Cir. 2010).

Silagyi v. Independent School District No 12

District Court, W.D. Oklahoma · Jun 30, 2023

The Court may consider both prongs of the qualified immunity analysis even though Defendants’ arguments focus on the “clearly established” prong. … Moreover, for purposes of the “clearly established” prong of qualified immunity (discussed below), the block quote Plaintiffs cite is insufficient to “create a clearly established weight of authority.” Sandberg v.

Jacqueline Washington v. L. Newsom R. Phillips J. Thomas the City of Southfield and the Southfield Police Department

977 F.2d 991 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Dec 21, 1992

When a claim to qualified immunity is raised within the context of a motion for summary judgment, the non-movant must allege facts sufficient to indicate that the act in question violated clearly established law at the time … Thus, the plaintiff must effectively pass two hurdles when facing a defendant on summary judgment who claims qualified immunity. First, the allegations must “state a claim of violation of clearly established law.”

James F. Robinson v. Solano County Brian Cauwells, Solano County Sheriff's Deputy Officer Gary Faulkner, Solano County Sheriff's Deputy Officer

278 F.3d 1007 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Feb 4, 2002

established in this circuit in 1995 to override the officers’ claim of qualified immunity. … Conclusion We hold that Officers Cauwells and Faulkner were entitled to qualified immunity on the federal excessive force claim because the Fourth Amendment law gov *1017 erning their conduct was not clearly established at

Todd E. Prater v. John Dahm Harold W. Clarke Aaron Hall Bobby C. Kilgore

89 F.3d 538 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jul 17, 1996

They argue that their actions did not violate Prater’s clearly established constitutional right to protection from inmate attacks, and thus that they are entitled to qualified immunity. II. … As our cases further establish, however, the question of qualified immunity requires more than a determination that a particular right is “clearly established” in the abstract. See Anderson v.

D'AOUST v. Diamond

424 Md. 549 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jan 31, 2012

qualified immunity. … The test clearly conflates the doctrines of absolute judicial immunity and qualified public official immunity.

Allah v. Goord

405 F. Supp. 2d 265 · District Court, S.D. New York · May 13, 2005

Qualified Immunity Standard The doctrine of qualified immunity shields government officials from civil damages liability as long as “ ‘their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights … However, if a violation is proven, “the next sequential step is to ask whether the right was clearly established.” 27 Qualified immunity is applicable unless the official’s conduct violated a clearly established constitutional

Simon v. City of N.Y.

893 F.3d 83 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jun 21, 2018

Qualified Immunity State executive officials "are entitled to qualified immunity under § 1983 unless (1) they violated a federal statutory or constitutional right, and (2) the unlawfulness of their conduct was 'clearly established … Qualified Immunity for the Seizure and Detention on August 12, 2008 Finally, we consider whether defendants' conduct on August 12 violated the Fourth Amendment and whether any violation was clearly established as of August

Romero v. Kitsap County

931 F.2d 624 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · May 1, 1991

However, when qualified immunity is at stake, a court must first determine whether the law has been clearly established. Tribble, 860 F.2d at 324 . … By extension, the qualified immunity defense extends to conduct that does not violate clearly established statutory, constitutional, or treaty-based rights 6 The Fourth Circuit observes: Often trial can yet be avoided if

Peavy v. Dallas Independent School District

57 F. Supp. 2d 382 · District Court, N.D. Texas · Aug 31, 1999

Qualified Immunity Defendant Kress contends that he is entitled to qualified immunity for the al~ leged violation of the Act and the alleged constitutional violation. … Conversely, an official’s conduct is not protected by qualified immunity if, in light of clearly established pre-existing law, it was apparent the conduct, when undertaken, would be a violation of the right at issue.

Tofano v. Reidel

61 F. Supp. 2d 289 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Aug 11, 1999

To this effect, government officials, performing discretionary functions, are afforded qualified immunity from suit “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … Having found the conduct of the officers to be objectively reasonable, plaintiff has not alleged a violation of a clearly established constitutional right and the officers are entitled to qualified immunity. Cf.

Bridget Murphy v. A. Engelhart

933 F.3d 1027 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Aug 14, 2019

Qualified immunity shields an officer if his “conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. … Accordingly, Engelhart’s takedown did not violate a clearly established constitutional right.

Landis v. Cardoza

515 F. Supp. 2d 809 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Sep 28, 2007

Qualified Immunity The Officers claim they are entitled to summary judgment on Landis’s § 1983 claim based on the doctrine of qualified immunity. … “Qualified immunity provides ‘that government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or

Billy Tyler v. Tom Barton and Frank O. Gunter

901 F.2d 689 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Apr 26, 1990

An exception exists, however, where a court denies summary judgment on the issue of qualified immunity because qualified immunity provides “immunity from suit rather than a mere defense to liability.” … Thus, we conclude that Barton and Gunter did not violate any clearly established constitutional right. Accordingly, the doctrine of qualified immunity applies to Barton and Gunter. III.

Patricia Mueller, Paul Mueller v. Douglas Tinkham and Michael Hanlen

162 F.3d 999 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Dec 16, 1998

his actions violated a clearly established right. … Qualified immunity protects “state actors from personal liability where their actions, though unlawful, are nevertheless objectively reasonable in light of the clearly established law.” Rogers, 133 F.3d at 1119.

Harris v. Huston

53 F. Supp. 2d 1027 · District Court, E.D. Wisconsin · Jun 21, 1999

The defendant has submitted a Rule 50 motion based on the defense of qualified immunity. The defendant argues that Mr. … I reserved ruling on the defendant’s qualified immunity motion partly because the defendant’s tardiness in raising the qualified immunity defense had effectively defeated its goal of sparing a public employee the cost of

Marcus Mote v. Debra Walthall

902 F.3d 500 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Aug 31, 2018

immunity as a defense.” 3 The only pure legal question we may answer at the qualified immunity stage is “whether a given course of conduct would be objectively unreasonable in light of clearly established law.” 4 … to the clearly-established prong of the qualified immunity analysis, and we confine our analysis accordingly. 5 Kinney, 367 F.3d at 347 (quoting Wagner v.