Case law

Gallimore ex rel. W.S.G. v. Henrico County School Board

38 F. Supp. 3d 721 · District Court, E.D. Virginia · Aug 5, 2014

“A school official searching a student is ‘entitled to qualified immunity where clearly established law does not show that the search violated the Fourth Amendment.’ ” Id. at 377 , 129 S.Ct. 2633 (quoting Pearson v. … “[W]here no reasonable officer could believe he was acting in accordance with [a clearly established constitutional right], qualified immunity will not attach.” Pinder v. Johnson, 54 F.3d 1169, 1173 (4th Cir.1995).

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.

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

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.

Barnett v. Karpinos

119 N.C. App. 719 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Aug 15, 1995

In reviewing this argument, we apply the following standard: “The test of qualified immunity for police officers sued under [section 1983] is whether [the officers’ conduct violated] clearly established statutory or constitutional … In ruling on the defense of qualified immunity we must: (1) identify the specific right allegedly violated; (2) determine whether the right allegedly violated was clearly established at the time of the violation; and (3)

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).

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.

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

Opinion No.

Arkansas Attorney General Reports · Jan 13, 2000

Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, an individual is immune from trial if the actions complained of were taken in good faith in the performance of one's duties, and the acts do not violate any clearly established constitutional … The immunity is "qualified" because it does not obtain where the activity is in violation of clearly established law that a reasonable person would have known. Robinson v.

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.

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.

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.

Hill v. Taconic Developmental Disabilities Services Office

283 F. Supp. 2d 955 · District Court, S.D. New York · Sep 22, 2003

Leonard, holding that a supervisor defendant is shielded by qualified immunity unless; (1) the law violated by the defendant’s subordinate is clearly established and (2) the supervisory liability doctrine under which the … If they were, then McNeill violated clearly established law.