Case law

Bingham v. City of Manhattan Beach

341 F.3d 939 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Aug 28, 2003

He posits a novel twist to the “clearly established” inquiry, contending that because it is not clearly established that damages may be obtained under § 1983 for an unlawful traffic stop, qualified immunity should apply. … Rather, in determining whether qualified immunity is available, those cases merely inquire whether the right at issue was clearly established in law.

Wright v. Department of Children and Family Services

District Court, N.D. Illinois · Oct 2, 2024

Bank Clothiers, Inc., 761 F.3d 732, 734–35 (7th Cir. 2014) 5 Defendants again assert that qualified immunity precludes Wright from proceeding on his § 1983 claim. … LeVan, 967 F.3d 584, 590 (7th Cir. 2020) (qualified immunity applies if the “well-pleaded allegations, taken as true, do not state a claim of violation of clearly established law”).

Turner v. Scott

119 F.3d 425 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 16, 1997

Turner, does not establish a prima facie case against Officer Scott, then Officer Scott is entitled to qualified immunity as a matter of law. … The issue on a claim of qualified immunity is not solely whether the right alleged to be violated was clearly established.

Livingston Manners v. Officer Ronald Cannella

891 F.3d 959 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jun 4, 2018

As for the officers, they were entitled to qualified immunity because they violated no clearly established constitutional right. … Qualified immunity is appropriate if the officers’ conduct did “not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Hill v.

Thomas L. Feathers Kathleen Feathers v. William Aey J.P. Donohue, City of Akron

319 F.3d 843 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Feb 13, 2003

The district court refused to grant the officers qualified immunity, ruling that the officers violated Thomas Feathers’s (“Feathers”) clearly established rights to *846 be free from an unreasonable seizure and to be free … Federal appellate courts have jurisdiction to hear interlocutory appeals concerning “the legal question of qualified immunity, i.e., whether a given set of facts violates clearly established law.” Mattox v.

Rico v. Ducart

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jan 27, 2026

The district court properly dismissed Rico’s action because defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. See Cuevas v. … of their conduct was clearly established at the time.”

Rosenfeld v. Clark

586 F. Supp. 1332 · District Court, D. Vermont · May 11, 1984

We are aware of no clearly established due process rights which required the Board to act more quickly than it did, no decision which clearly states that a sixty day or even a ninety day appeal process in a situation such … Where there has been no violation of a clearly established right, defendants are entitled to qualified immunity and plaintiffs claim for damages must be dismissed.

Baker v. Gray

57 Mass. App. Ct. 618 · Massachusetts Appeals Court · Mar 24, 2003

The doctrine of qualified immunity may shield State officials from liability for civil damages under this statute, so long as they are performing discretionary functions and do not violate “clearly established statutory or … Gray accordingly was entitled to qualified immunity from the plaintiffs’ additional claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging violation of their clearly established rights under the First Amendment and equal protection clause

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

Martinez v. Hardy

864 S.W.2d 767 · Court of Appeals of Texas · Oct 28, 1993

Indeed, our finding of absolute privilege could be expressed in terms of qualified immunity. … Our absolute privilege analysis clearly shows that the first two elements of qualified immunity are met.

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.

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).

Johnston v. City of Houston, Tex.

14 F.3d 1056 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Feb 22, 1994

Principles of Qualified Immunity The qualified or "good faith" immunity doctrine was established to reconcile two competing interests. … Whether a government official is entitled to qualified immunity "generally turns on the "objective reasonableness of the action" assessed in light of the legal rules that were "clearly established" at the time

Ronald Jordan, Robert MacKay and the Mbta Police Patrolman's Union v. Joseph C. Carter

428 F.3d 67 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Nov 4, 2005

As noted above, the district court rejected appellant’s qualified immunity defense, which shields government actors from damages based on their conduct unless a reasonable official would have known, in light of clearly established … Clearly Established Right The second stage of the qualified immunity inquiry requires us to determine whether the right we have identified was “ ‘reasonably well settled at the time of the challenged conduct,’ ” Mihos, 358

David M. Mumford v. Joseph Zieba, Judge, in His Official and Individual Capacities Lorain County Common Pleas Court, Domestic Relations Division

4 F.3d 429 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Sep 1, 1993

Moreover, Judge Zieba argued that he was protected from personal liability by the doctrine of qualified immunity because the law was not clearly established on January 3, 1989 that a chief referee of a domestic relations … Steingut, 829 F.2d 317 (2d Cir.1987), granted state officials qualified immunity when they refused to reappoint a plaintiff to the position of workers’ compensation referee because federal law was not clearly established

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.

Kandi Torres, Keisha Collins, and Oliver Bell v. Michael A. McCann

Texas Court of Appeals, 13th District · Jun 9, 2016

Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from civil liability insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established federal statutory … In summary, McCann has failed to carry his burden to create an issue of material fact as to whether the officials’ conduct violated any clearly established constitutional rights with regard to his First Amendment and retaliation

Michael Sack v. City of St. Louis

Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Sep 4, 2026

In an interlocutory appeal from the denial of qualified immunity, we have jurisdiction to decide “the purely legal issue of whether the facts alleged by the plaintiff are a violation of clearly established law.” … Qualified immunity shields officials from suit under § 1983 if their “conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Pearson v.

DiLoreto v. Borough of Oaklyn

744 F. Supp. 610 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Aug 21, 1990

clearly established right). … As was noted in the discussion of qualified immunity, it was clearly established that a search will be considered a violation of the fourth amendment if it is unreasonable. Bell v.

James v. Rowlands

606 F.3d 646 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · May 26, 2010

We conclude that, even if such rights existed, they were not clearly established. We therefore affirm the grant of qualified immunity on these two claims. … We conclude, however, that James’s right to this information was not clearly established and that the offi- cials are therefore entitled to qualified immunity on these claims.