Case law

Mason-Funk v. City of Neenah

296 F. Supp. 3d 1006 · District Court, E.D. Wisconsin · Nov 1, 2017

In order to overcome a defense of qualified immunity, the plaintiff's allegations must describe a deprivation of a constitutional or statutory right and the right must be clearly established at the time of the defendants' … Before engaging the qualified immunity analysis, the Supreme Court remarked: "[I]t is again necessary to reiterate the longstanding principle that 'clearly established law' should not be defined 'at a high level of generality

Prokop v. City of Los Angeles

59 Cal. Rptr. 3d 355 · California Court of Appeal · May 21, 2007

—In Carroll, supra, 60 Cal.App.4th 606 , the court held that a paved bicycle path qualifies as a “trail” under the immunity provisions of section 831.4. … We have already disposed of this argument: Government Code section 815, subdivision (b), clearly provides that the liability of a public entity established by “this part”—which includes the section 815.6 liability for failure

Desiree Martinez v. City of Clovis

943 F.3d 1260 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Dec 4, 2019

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY DOCTRINE “The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … Qualified immunity applies either where there was no constitutional violation or where the constitutional violation was not clearly established. See id.

Mason v. Arizona

260 F. Supp. 2d 807 · District Court, D. Arizona · Mar 28, 2003

In Harlow , the Supreme Court established the test for qualified immunity: whether the official violated “clearly established [federal] statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … Qualified immunity seeks to balance these two competing interests by protecting public officials from personal liability as long as they do not violate clearly established federal law.

Wells v. Bonner

45 F.3d 90 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Feb 17, 1995

, they alternatively contend that they are entitled to claim qualified immunity because Wells has failed to show that they violated any clearly established constitutional right. … In this immunity appeal, we must next determine whether Wells's proffered evidence demonstrates the basis for the violation of a clearly established constitutional right. Siegert, 500 U.S.

Mahoney v. City of Albany

2022 NY Slip Op 07288 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Dec 22, 2022

In the federal context, public officials may invoke qualified immunity under 42 USC § 1983 "unless (1) they violated a federal statutory or constitutional right, and (2) the unlawfulness of their conduct was clearly established … Given this framework, we begin with Tierney's claim of qualified immunity.

Mary Jo. Bradley v. Officer Casey Benton

10 F.4th 1232 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 26, 2021

“Qualified immunity shields public officials from liability for civil damages when their conduct does not violate a constitutional right that was clearly established at the time of the challenged action.” Bailey v. … In other words, an officer is entitled to qualified immunity unless he (1) violated a constitutional right, and (2) that constitutional right was clearly established at the time. See Helm, 989 F.3d at 1272.

Waller v. State

64 Wash. App. 318 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Feb 18, 1992

The Meyers court determined that the proper qualified immunity test was whether the conduct complained of "violate[d] clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.'" … The qualified immunity question is whether the caseworkers' actions violated clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. Meyers , at 1158.

Elkins v. McKenzie

865 So. 2d 1065 · Mississippi Supreme Court · Oct 30, 2003

The first step in the qualified immunity analysis is to determine whether the plaintiff has alleged the violation of a clearly established federal constitutional (or federal statutory) right. Hare v. … To ensure that qualified immunity serves its intended purpose, it is of paramount import, during step two, to define "clearly established law" at the proper level of generality. Anderson v.

Saiger v. City of Chicago

37 F. Supp. 3d 979 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jun 19, 2014

Qualified immunity requires a court to assess ‘the objective reasonableness of an official’s conduct, as measured by reference to clearly established law.” Harlow v. … City of Chicago, 242 F.3d 737 , 742 (7th Cir.2001) (“qualified immunity is dissolved ... when the conduct is so egregious that no reasonable person could have believed that it would not violate clearly established rights.

Affiliated Capital Corporation, Etc. v. City of Houston, Gulf Coast Cable Television and James J. McConn

735 F.2d 1555 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Sep 17, 1984

Since we find that McConn is entitled to qualified immunity we need not reach the question of his absolute immunity. … The Mayor is absolved of liability only because applying the Harlow immunity standard he did not, as a matter of law, violate a clearly established law.

Carroll v. Robinson

178 Ariz. 453 · Court of Appeals of Arizona · May 12, 1994

Qualified immunity protects an official from civil liability in a section 1983 action for conduct which “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known … Whether the legal right allegedly violated was clearly established is a question of law; whether a reasonable official would know that he or she was violating that clearly established law is a question for the jury.

Mitchell v. Village Of Matteson

District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jun 5, 2020

Qualified Immunity Dumais and Reyes argue that, even if Mitchell has stated a claim, they are entitled to qualified immunity on both § 1983 claims. … Qualified immunity applies unless the plaintiff shows that the officer violated a statutory or constitutional right that was clearly established at the time of the violation. Id. at 546.

William Andreu v. Glen E. Sapp, Individually and as Sheriff of Charlotte County, and William E. Reilly

919 F.2d 637 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Dec 18, 1990

established right that the defendant has allegedly violated, the district court should defer ruling on the qualified immunity issue. … Thus, the defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity if it was clearly established that the plaintiff was “in the employ” of the office.

Payne v. County of Humboldt

655 F. Supp. 1341 · District Court, N.D. California · Mar 18, 1987

In other words, defendants who act pursuant to their official duties may still be liable under section 1983 if they act unreasonably or in violation of clearly established laws. … To deny him qualified immunity protection unless he goes further and demonstrates that his actions were above the benchmark of legal good faith, would make the concept of qualified immunity a meaningless embellishment.

Armijo Ex Rel. Chavez v. Wagon Mound Public Schools

159 F.3d 1253 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Oct 28, 1998

“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.” Id. … that the relevant law was clearly established when the alleged violation occurred.

Emmett v. Armstrong

973 F.3d 1127 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Sep 1, 2020

Because Emmett’s excessive force claim alleges a clearly established violation of the Fourth Amendment, Officer Armstrong is not entitled to qualified immunity on that claim. … “[W]hen a finding of qualified immunity is based on a conclusion that the officer has committed no constitutional violation—i.e., the first step of the qualified immunity analysis—a finding of qualified immunity . . .

Foley v. Univ of Houston Sys

355 F.3d 333 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Dec 18, 2003

Public officials are entitled to qualified immunity when “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … However, the test for qualified immunity is whether the Appellees have asserted the deprivation of a statutory right under clearly established law.

Nash v. Douglas County

733 F. Supp. 100 · District Court, N.D. Georgia · Nov 17, 1989

Qualified Immunity Harper, Hale, Copeland and Holmes, (“the law officer defendants”), assert that they are entitled to summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds. … The qualified immunity defense, first recognized by the Supreme court in Pierson v.

Marwan Mahajni v. Vu Do

Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Apr 13, 2026

On the immunity issues, it denied qualified immunity to Deputy Do, ruling that United States ex rel. Tobe was an anal- ogous case and clearly established that Deputy Do’s conduct violated Mr. … Deputy Woida is entitled to qualified immunity for a sec- ond reason—there’s no clearly established law that says that a bailiff who fails to stop someone else from making an im- proper statement to a juror violates a defendant