Case law

Bibeau v. Pacific Northwest Research Foundation Inc.

188 F.3d 1105 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Aug 19, 1999

answered for purposes of qualified immunity is whether the law was clearly established at the time of the alleged acts. … Without more involvement in the experiments, they did not violate any of Bibeau’s clearly established rights, and therefore are entitled to qualified immunity.

Garvey v. Vermilion

2012 Ohio 1258 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Mar 26, 2012

‘If no constitutional right would have been violated were the  5 allegations established, there is no necessity for further inquiries concerning qualified immunity.’” … be determined before trial whether the defendant did acts that violate clearly established rights.”

Rosalina Calonge v. City of San Jose

104 F.4th 39 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jun 7, 2024

We also conclude that the relevant law was clearly established at the time, so Officer Carboni is not entitled to qualified immunity. … CITY OF SAN JOSE immunity at the summary judgment stage because there were genuine disputes of material fact. She also argued that qualified immunity was inappropriate because the relevant law was clearly established.

Jones v. Fountain

121 F. Supp. 2d 571 · District Court, E.D. Texas · Jul 7, 2000

The court will now proceed to the qualified immunity discussion. IV. QUALIFIED IMMUNITY In his third motion for summary judgment, defendant argues Jones’ claims are barred by qualified immunity. … In assessing a qualified immunity claim the district court must determine “whether (1) the plaintiffs have asserted a constitutional or statutory violation; (2) the law regarding the alleged violation was clearly established

McGrath v. Gillis

44 F.3d 567 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jan 6, 1995

“Unless the plaintiffs allegations state a claim of violation of clearly established law, a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal before the commencement of discovery.” … . *570 In order to defeat a claim of qualified immunity, a plaintiff must allege a cognizable violation of a constitutional right clearly established at the time of the alleged misconduct.

Spooner v. Phoenix

246 Ariz. 119 · Court of Appeals of Arizona · Nov 27, 2018

To the extent these actions violate clearly established law or reflect a reckless disregard of Spooner’s rights, they are afforded no protection. … But to the extent Brown’s actions reflect the legitimate exercise of professional judgment, they are discretionary and protected by qualified immunity.

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.”

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.”

Elizabeth Roque-Rodriguez v. Hon. Jose Lema Moya

926 F.2d 103 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Feb 27, 1991

This is clearly an error of law, since for purposes of the doctrine of qualified immunity, th[e] court had to determine whether on [sic] 1985, plaintiff had a clearly established right under the First Amendment to be promoted … and that the failure to promote her violated this clearly established right.

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?

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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.