Case law

Hare v. City of Corinth, Miss.

949 F. Supp. 456 · District Court, N.D. Mississippi · Nov 22, 1996

The first step in the inquiry of the defendants’ claim of qualified immunity is whether the plaintiff has alleged the violation of a clearly established right. Siegert v. … Dec. 16, 1994). 1) Was the law clearly established?

Kopec v. Tate

230 F. Supp. 2d 619 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 21, 2002

Defendant asserts a defense of qualified immunity. … must be “clearly established.”

Melissa Knibbs v. Anthony Momphard, Jr.

30 F.4th 200 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Mar 30, 2022

“Qualified immunity protects officers who commit constitutional violations but who, in light of clearly established law, could reasonably believe that their actions were lawful.” Henry, 652 F.3d at 531. … Deputy Momphard would still be entitled to qualified immunity if he could show that the constitutional right he violated was not “‘clearly established’ at the time of [his] alleged misconduct.”

Stone v. Peacock

968 F.2d 1163 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 17, 1992

Qualified immunity is an affirmative defense which protects public officials acting within the scope of their discretionary authority and under clearly established law from insubstantial lawsuits. Butz v. … The jury was instructed to determine if defendants violated clearly established law.

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.

Finch v. Rapp

38 F.4th 1234 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jul 5, 2022

Clearly Established Having found a constitutional violation, the district court correctly denied qualified immunity because Rapp’s action violated clearly established law. … The court affirmed the denial of qualified immunity. In Walker v.

Mario Garcia v. County of Riverside

817 F.3d 635 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Feb 3, 2016

Amendment were clearly established. … asserts was “clearly established” at the time of the alleged misconduct.

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.

WV Division of Corrections, Scott Patterson and Jason Walton v. P.R.

West Virginia Supreme Court · Nov 22, 2019

The parties disagree about whether Policy Directive 332.02 constitutes a “clearly established law” for purposes of defeating qualified immunity. … whether or not a right is clearly established, has resulted in the “conver[sion of] qualified immunity to near absolute immunity,” Rebalancing Harlow: A New Approach to Qualified Immunity in the Fourth Amendment, 68 Chase

Roe v. Fryer

District Court, M.D. Florida · Oct 25, 2024

that they violated a clearly established constitutional right. … the qualified immunity privilege, even in the absence of case law.

Guilford v. Frost

269 F. Supp. 3d 816 · District Court, W.D. Michigan · Aug 18, 2017

At a minimum, Sergeant Frost is entitled to qualified immunity because the law was not clearly established at the time of the stop. … Young, 780 F.3d 998, 1010 (10th Cir. 2015) (“reciting the overarching requirement of probable cause does not pass muster in a qualified-immunity clearly-established-law assessment”).

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.

Crehan v. Davis

713 F. Supp. 2d 688 · District Court, W.D. Michigan · May 18, 2010

“Ordinarily, a Supreme Court or Sixth Circuit [Court of Appeals] decision on point is necessary” to clearly establish the right in the relevant context and defeat qualified immunity. See Reynolds v. … With no clearly established law in place .... ”)). 10 *697 This means that Crehan cannot defeat Officer Davis’s qualified-immunity defense w+nt “clearly establishing” her general Fourth Amendment right to be free from excessive

Hurd v. Fredenburgh

984 F.3d 1075 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jan 12, 2021

But because neither of these rights was clearly established before today, Fredenburgh is entitled to qualified immunity for any responsibility she may have had for Hurd’s prolonged detention. … Clearly Established Law “Government actors 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

Estate of Lee Ex Rel. Lee v. Spokane

2 P.3d 979 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Jun 15, 2000

Police officers have qualified immunity from liability for civil damages for conduct that "does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.'" Id. … Entitlement to qualified immunity may be established, and was established here, as a matter of law. Robinson v. City of Seattle, 119 Wash.2d 34, 65 , 830 P.2d 318 (1992). By the plaintiffs' own account, Mr.

Martin v. D.C. Metropolitan Police Department

812 F.2d 1425 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Feb 10, 1987

(footnotes omitted); Mitchell, 105 S.Ct. at 2816 (defendant entitled to dismissal on qualified immunity plea unless plaintiff states a claim of violation of clearly established law). … The “clearly established law” and “objective reasonableness” facets of current qualified immunity doctrine tug in opposite directions where, as here, the “clearly established law” itself contains a subjective component.

DeShawn Anderson-Santos v. Kent County, Mich.

94 F.4th 550 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Feb 29, 2024

Page 7 clearly-established constitutional violation based on his version of the facts, fails to present us with a legal issue and relegates his claim to a factual dispute over which we cannot exercise jurisdiction. … of clearly established law.”

Howards v. McLaughlin

634 F.3d 1131 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Mar 14, 2011

“Such immunity is qualified in that it does not obtain when otherwise immune officials violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … In qualified immunity cases, we may look to other courts when there is no Supreme Court or Tenth Circuit precedent on point to determine if a right is "clearly established.” See, e.g., York v.

Blake v. Wright

179 F.3d 1002 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 15, 1999

Alternatively, the majority opinion may imply that the district court in Mitchell could not reach the qualified immunity question because the law with respect to Title III was clearly established, not because qualified immunity … We fail to see the logic of providing a defense of qualified immunity to protect public officials from personal liability when they violate constitutional rights that are not clearly established and deny them qualified immunity

Nance v. Sammis

586 F.3d 604 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Nov 10, 2009

Qualified immunity protects government officials from liability under § 1983 when their conduct does not violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … Oct.6, 2009) (finding case law clearly established on this constitutional right as of July 2006).