Case law

Robin Thompson v. James"Clint" Murray

800 F.3d 979 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Sep 2, 2015

clearly established. … -6-  Murray is entitled to qualified immunity unless the above-described facts demonstrate that he violated a clearly established constitutional or statutory right of

Staats v. Brown

991 P.2d 615 · Washington Supreme Court · Jan 24, 2000

ANALYSIS Standard of Review Claims of qualified immunity from suit under § 1983 must fail if the constitutional right allegedly violated was clearly established at the time of the act. Harlow v. … Consequently, he is qualifiedly immune for claims under state law. The test for qualified immunity under federal law is an objective one, measured by reference to clearly established law. See Harlow v.

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.

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.

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.

Smith v. Finch

324 F. Supp. 3d 1012 · District Court, E.D. Missouri · Jul 2, 2018

Under the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis, the Court must determine whether the right in question was "clearly established at the time of the defendant's alleged misconduct." … However, qualified immunity will protect an officer from liability for an arrest "if a reasonable officer could have believed [the arrest] to be lawful, in light of clearly established law and the information the [officers

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.

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

Christopher Jones v. Howard Skolnik

671 F. App'x 560 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Dec 16, 2016

a claim of violation of clearly established law"). 2. … When we address the issue of qualified immunity at the pleading stage, we ask whether the complaint "allege[s] facts sufficient to support [a] claim[] that [the defendant’s] conduct violated [the plaintiff’s] clearly established

Searles v. City of Houston

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jul 9, 2026

However, bound by our qualified immunity precedent, we affirm the district court on the basis that there is no clearly established law. I. … In particular, plaintiffs “must rebut the [qualified immunity] defense by establishing a genuine fact issue as to whether the official’s allegedly wrongful conduct violated clearly established law.”

Grigsby & Assocs., Inc. v. City of Shreveport

294 F. Supp. 3d 529 · District Court, W.D. Louisiana · Feb 14, 2018

A defendant who can validly raise a qualified immunity defense will enjoy its protection so long as the allegedly violated constitutional right was not clearly established at the time of the violation. See id. … The qualified immunity inquiry turns on "the objective legal reasonableness of the action, assessed in light of the legal rules that were clearly established at the time it was taken". Id. at 244, 129 S.Ct. at 822.

Logan v. Sycamore Community School Board of Education

780 F. Supp. 2d 594 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Feb 3, 2011

Qualified Immunity 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 rights of which … cannot violate clearly established constitutional rights as conduct that would “shock the conscience” (doc. 64).

Brown v. Grabowski

922 F.2d 1097 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Dec 31, 1990

Anderson’s strict elaboration of Harlow , establishing that an official is entitled to summary judgment on grounds of qualified immunity, unless the right that the official is alleged to have violated is both clearly established … established constitutional duty and that he was entitled to qualified immunity.

Staneart v. Board of Trustees of Ransom Memorial Hospital

684 F. Supp. 1573 · District Court, D. Kansas · Apr 18, 1988

Staneart responds that qualified immunity is inapplicable because clearly established law proscribed the defendants’ conduct. As stated above, the court will consider this motion as a motion for summary judgment. … If the plaintiff fails to convince the court that the law was clearly established, the defendant is entitled to qualified immunity and judgment must be entered in his favor. Burk v.