Case law

In Re State Police Litigation

88 F.3d 111 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jul 3, 1996

On appeal, defendants contend that they are entitled to qualified immunity principally because at the pertinent times it was not clearly established that tape-recording telephone calls, without ever listening to them, violated … Summary judgment dismissing a claim on the basis of the defendants' qualified-immunity defense may thus be granted if the court finds that the asserted rights were not clearly established, or if the evidence is such that,

Lawrence Thompson v. Pete Copeland

885 F.3d 582 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Mar 13, 2018

Dissenting, Judge Christen would hold that the police officer was not entitled to qualified immunity on plaintiff’s excessive force claim because plaintiff’s right not to have a gun pointed at his head was clearly established … Conclusion Because the law was not clearly established within the parameters dictated by the Supreme Court, Copeland is entitled to qualified immunity and the grant of summary judgment is AFFIRMED.

City of Escondido v. Emmons

586 U.S. 38 · Supreme Court of the United States · Jan 7, 2019

The question in this qualified immunity case is whether two police officers violated clearly established law when they forcibly apprehended a man at the scene of a reported domestic violence incident. … Assuming without deciding that a court of appeals decision may constitute clearly established law for purposes of qualified immunity, see City and County of San Francisco v. Sheehan, 575 U.

ESTATE OF ROSENBAUM BY PLOTKIN v. City of New York

975 F. Supp. 206 · District Court, E.D. New York · Aug 22, 1997

Was this Right Clearly Established? … This “clearly established” linchpin for determining the applicability of the qualified immunity defense transcends the viability of the § 1983 claim. See Gomez, 446 U.S. at 640 , 100 S.Ct. at 1923-1924 .

Dimarco-Zappa v. Cabanillas

238 F.3d 25 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Jan 19, 2001

right at issue was not clearly established under Harlow v. … In contrast with their other arguments, defendants did not waive the qualified immunity argument. 13 However, defendants *36 based their immunity argument primarily on the contention that no clearly established right was

Eriakha

District Court, N.D. Mississippi · Jan 7, 2026

To rebut a qualified immunity defense, the plaintiff must have “alleged a violation of a constitutional right and whether the right at issue was ‘clearly established’ at the time of the alleged violation.” Cope v. … Sheehan, 575 U.S. 600, 613 (2015) (“Qualified immunity is no immunity at all if clearly established law can simply be defined as the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures.”).

Sabrina Fields v. City of Omaha, Douglas County, Nebraska, a Municipal Corporation, & Vytautas MacKevicius

810 F.2d 830 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Feb 9, 1987

Officer Mackevicius can claim qualified immunity in the present case if his actions did not violate clearly established constitutional rights of which he should have known. … The officer may not, therefore, claim qualified immunity in this case because he failed to follow clearly established constitutional law of which he should have known.

Jenkins v. Town of Vardaman

899 F. Supp. 2d 526 · District Court, N.D. Mississippi · Oct 22, 2012

If the plaintiff fails to state a constitutional claim or if the defendant’s conduct was objectively reasonable under clearly established law, then the governmental official is entitled to qualified immunity. Id. … this defense by establishing that the official’s allegedly wrongful conduct violated clearly established law.”

Koistra v. Cnty. of San Diego

310 F. Supp. 3d 1066 · District Court, S.D. California · Apr 19, 2018

Qualified Immunity Defendant Vail asserts the affirmative defense of qualified immunity applies to him. Plaintiff opposes. … Mendoza , 27 F.3d at 1361 (affirming district court's denial of qualified immunity where law was clearly established, but officer's conduct was not objectively reasonable).

Sandoval v. Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department

756 F.3d 1154 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jul 1, 2014

LAS VEGAS METRO POLICE DEP’T 11 For qualified immunity purposes, in determining whether a constitutional right was clearly established, it is not enough that there is a generally established proposition … LAS VEGAS METRO POLICE DEP’T constitutional right was clearly established for qualified immunity purposes. See also Tekle v.

Issaenko v. University of Minnesota

57 F. Supp. 3d 985 · District Court, D. Minnesota · Sep 30, 2014

Qualified immunity shields government officials from liability if “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. … “A Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal based on qualified immunity is appropriate when the immunity is established on the face of the complaint.” Dornheim v.

Slone v. Herman

983 F.2d 107 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Feb 5, 1993

Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 , 102 S.Ct. 2727, 2738 , 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982), the Supreme Court held that, in order for officials to lose their qualified immunity, their conduct must violate "clearly established statutory … The Court stated that the agent was entitled to qualified immunity if, "in light of the clearly established principles governing warrantless searches, he could, as a matter of law, reasonably have believed that the search

Carlos Samuel v. Morris Holmes, Maudelle Davis-Cade, J. Berengher Brechtel, Gail Moore Glapion, Carolyn Green Ford and Cheryl Q. Cramer

138 F.3d 173 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Mar 31, 1998

Fitzgerald, the Supreme Court held that qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions from individual liability for civil damages “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established … The first question is whether the plaintiff has alleged the violation of a clearly established statutory or constitutional right.

Hal Stanley v. Katherine Finnegan

899 F.3d 623 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Aug 10, 2018

of child abuse.2 2 On the merits, to defeat a qualified immunity defense, plaintiff has the burden of proving that defendant’s conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right. … “Qualified immunity protects public officials from § 1983 damage actions if their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”

Surratt v. McClaran

234 F. Supp. 3d 815 · District Court, E.D. Texas · Mar 3, 2016

Qualified Immunity: Section 1983 Claims against Individual Defendants in their Individual Capacities Defendants argue that Caver, Stevens, and McClaran are entitled to qualified immunity from Section 1983 claims brought against … “Qualified immunity protects government officials from liability so long as their conduct ‘does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’”

James Eric McDonough v. Carlos Garcia

90 F.4th 1080 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jan 10, 2024

“Qualified immunity offers protection for government officials, acting within their discretionary authority, who are sued in their individual capacities as long as their conduct does not violate clearly … and that the right at issue was clearly established when the violation occurred.

Jeremy Nelson v. County of Wright

Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Dec 10, 1998

Government officials performing discretionary tasks are entitled to qualified immunity unless their actions violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … The standard was clearly established.5 Whether Hudek is entitled to qualified immunity must be examined from the perspective of the situation as he understood it at the time. Anderson v.

Akil Al-Jundi v. Vincent Mancusi, Karl Pfeil, Russell G. Oswald, the Estate of Nelson A. Rockefeller

926 F.2d 235 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Feb 27, 1991

Thus, what remains for trial are the first portion (the planning) as against Oswald and the second portion (the reprisals) as against all three appellants. 1 Whether qualified immunity was established as a matter of law as … Discussion Qualified immunity is available on motion for summary judgment if it appears, from undisputed facts, that an officer’s conduct did not violate constitutional rights that were clearly established at the time of

May v. Strain

55 F. Supp. 3d 885 · District Court, E.D. Louisiana · Oct 21, 2014

bears the burden of negating qualified immunity “by establishing a genuine fact issue as to whether the [officers’] *897 allegedly wrongful conduct violated clearly established law.” 103 However, all inferences are drawn … This requirement establishes a high bar.” 107 When there is no controlling authority specifically prohibiting a defendant’s conduct, 'the law is not clearly established for the purposes of defeating qualified immunity. 108

Martin-Mcfarlane v. City of Phila.

299 F. Supp. 3d 658 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 26, 2017

immunity falls to the official claiming it as a defense." 36 Establishing qualified immunity involves a two-step inquiry. … to be resolved before determining whether [a] defendant's conduct violated a clearly established right." 44 A decision as to qualified immunity now, therefore, is premature. 45 2.