Case law

Spiker v. Allegheny County Board of Probation & Parole

920 F. Supp. 2d 580 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 30, 2013

In order for a federally protected right to be “clearly established” for purposes of qualified immunity, “[t]he contours of the right must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he [or … Whittaker may be entitled to qualified immunity for these actions, however, if it would not have been clear to a reasonable officer in her position that those actions violated clearly established law.

Taylor v. Rogich

45 F. Supp. 3d 223 · District Court, E.D. New York · Jan 2, 2014

Qualified immunity is applicable unless the official’s conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right.... … The Court deter *227 mined that “Brosseau’s actions fell in the hazy border between excessive and acceptable force [and that qualified immunity applied because] cases by no means clearly established] that Brosseau’s conduct

MIMICS, Inc. v. Village of Angel Fire

394 F.3d 836 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jan 3, 2005

Usually, if the law was clearly established at the time of the relevant events, the qualified immunity defense will fail. Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818-19 (1982). … Id. at 934. 8 The purpose of requiring the law to be clearly established in qualified immunity determinations is so state officials have fair notice that their conduct is unconstitutional.

Krein v. Norris

309 F.3d 487 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Oct 16, 2002

not specifically and conclusively ruled on the issue of qualified immunity. … holding that "plaintiff has asserted the violation of a constitutional right [and] the right is clearly established."

Pekrun v. Puente

172 F. Supp. 3d 1039 · District Court, E.D. Wisconsin · Mar 23, 2016

Qualified immunity “protects government officials from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known … In support of his argument for qualified immunity, Puente cites Gause v.

Van Beek v. Robinson

879 F. Supp. 2d 707 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Jul 16, 2012

Clearly Established Law To overcome an assertion of qualified immunity, Plaintiff must also demonstrate that the constitutional right at issue was clearly established at the time of the alleged deprivation. … Defendants claim that the detention and search of Plaintiff is not “clearly established” as unlawful, and they, therefore, are entitled to qualified immunity. The Court disagrees.

Brannum Ex Rel. Brannum v. Overton County School Board

516 F.3d 489 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Feb 20, 2008

Under the qualified immunity doctrine, public officials cannot be held liable for violating a person’s constitutional rights unless the right was clearly established at the time of the alleged improper conduct. … Creighton, 483 U.S. 635 , 107 S.Ct. 3034 , 97 L.Ed.2d 523 (1987), the Supreme Court articulated the meaning of “clearly established” in the context of the defense of qualified immunity: The contours of the right must be sufficiently

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.”

Gould v. Symons

275 F. Supp. 2d 843 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Jul 18, 2003

entitled to qualified immunity from suit. … established principle of law and, therefore, the defendants were not entitled to qualified immunity.

Beg Investments, LLC v. Alberti

85 F. Supp. 3d 54 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 24, 2015

As a result, Defendants were entitled to qualified immunity. Id. … In granting Defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s RICO and underlying Hobbs Act claims, this Court explained that state actors are entitled to qualified immunity on RICO claims for “conduct that does not violate clearly

Doctor Awanna Leslie v. Hancock County Board of Education

720 F.3d 1338 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jul 12, 2013

had was not clearly established. … “[T]o obtain qualified immunity, an official must first establish that he acted within his discretionary authority.”

Felton v. Polles

315 F.3d 470 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Dec 17, 2002

qualified immunity, not the merits. … In any event, for qualified immunity purposes, the test is whether Carter has asserted deprivation of a statutory right under clearly established law.

Hemry v. Ross

62 F.4th 1248 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Mar 10, 2023

When a defendant claims qualified immunity, the plaintiff must show “(1) the defendant violated his constitutional rights; and (2) the law was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation.” Soza v. … Accordingly, the officers are entitled to qualified immunity. III.

Fierro v. City of New York

341 F. App'x 696 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jul 27, 2009

A government official is entitled to qualified immunity where his or her discretionary conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … Pataki, 196 F.3d 56 , 66 (2d Cir.1999) (indicating that if a constitutional protection is not clearly established at the time of an official’s alleged conduct, the official will be protected by qualified immunity even if

Sorano v. Taggart

642 F. Supp. 2d 45 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jul 29, 2009

“Qualified immunity is an affirmative defense that shields government officials from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a … Qualified Immunity — The Merits “A government official performing a discretionary function is entitled to qualified immunity provided his or her ‘conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights

Maxwell v. MAYOR & ALDER. OF SAVANNAH

226 Ga. App. 705 · Court of Appeals of Georgia · Jun 5, 1997

Despite this finding, however, we conclude that Gellatly was immune from the § 1983 claim in this case. Gellatly’s qualified immunity defense is governed by federal law. Forney v. Purvis, 190 Ga. … For the law to be *708 clearly established to the point that qualified immunity does not apply, the law must have earlier been developed in such a concrete and factually defined context to make it obvious to all reasonable

Dollard v. Callery

185 A.3d 694 · Superior Court of Delaware · Apr 16, 2018

“Qualified immunity shields government officials from civil damages liability unless the official violated a statutory or constitutional right that was clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct.”63 A clearly … right to fair trial—that clearly was established at the time of the challenged conduct.

Butler v. City of Norman

992 F.2d 1053 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Apr 28, 1993

official violated the clearly established law. … In Mitchell the Court held: 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 ..

Chinchello v. Fenton

805 F.2d 126 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Nov 14, 1986

We acknowledge that on these facts the distinction between an “I didn’t do it” defense and a qualified immunity defense based on the absence of a clearly established legal duty is not as clear cut as in most other contexts … Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. at 818, 102 S.Ct. at 2738, instructed that qualified immunity is unavailable if the defendant’s conduct violated “clearly established ... statutory rights” and, based on Davis v.

Robinson v. City of Seattle

119 Wash. 2d 34 · Washington Supreme Court · May 14, 1992

constitutional or statutory rights; such persons are entitled to qualified immunity from a claim under section 1983 if their conduct is objectively reasonable when measured against clearly established law. … Qualified immunity from suit must be granted when the law or right allegedly violated is not clearly established. Conner v. Santa Ana, 897 F.2d 1487 , 1492 (9th Cir. 1990).