Case law

Brown v. Dickey

117 F.4th 1 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Sep 3, 2024

Qualified immunity, which shields an officer from civil liability unless the officer violates clearly established law of which a reasonable officer would have known, is an immunity from suit and damages. … Because qualified immunity is an immunity from suit, an officer's claim of qualified immunity "ought to be resolved as soon as possible in [the] litigation." Norton, 955 F.3d at 183.

Coates v. Powell

650 F. Supp. 2d 932 · District Court, W.D. Missouri · Jul 1, 2009

Qualified Immunity Generally “Qualified immunity shields governmental officials from personal liability if their actions, even if unlawful, were nevertheless objectively reasonable in light of the clearly established law … Thus, “a state official is protected by qualified *938 immunity from a section 1983 claim unless [the] alleged conduct violated clearly established federal constitutional or statutory rights of which a reasonable person in

Carrigan v. State of Del.

957 F. Supp. 1376 · District Court, D. Delaware · Feb 18, 1997

In Anderson, the Supreme Court elaborated on the “clearly established law” prong of the qualified immunity inquiry. … However, whether these broad constitutional principles are clearly established is not the appropriate inquiry under the qualified immunity standard.

Reyes v. Fischer

934 F.3d 97 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Aug 9, 2019

violated clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known." … Government officials performing discretionary functions generally are afforded qualified immunity, and are therefore "shielded from liability for civil damages" when "their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory

Michael J. Daugherty & Labmd, Inc. v. Sheer

891 F.3d 386 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jun 1, 2018

“Qualified immunity depends upon the answers to two questions: (1) Did the officer’s conduct violate a constitutional or statutory right? If so, (2) was that right clearly established at the time of the violation?” … The proponent of a purported right has the “burden to show that the particular right in question . . . was clearly established” for qualified-immunity purposes. Dukore v. Dist. of Columbia, 799 F.3d 1137, 1145 (D.C.

Morse v. Fusto

804 F.3d 538 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Sep 11, 2015

Qualified Immunity “Qualified immunity protects public officials performing discretionary functions from personal liability in a civil suit for damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … We conclude that the right in question was clearly established such that the defendants are 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

Deborah Audra Skousen v. Brighton High School, Paul Rambo, a Michigan State Trooper

305 F.3d 520 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Sep 26, 2002

We do, however, retain jurisdiction over the legal question of qualified immunity, which requires a determination of whether a given set of facts violates a clearly established right. Mat-tox, 183 F.3d at 519 . … all, and then must determine whether the claimed right was clearly established, before proceeding to the qualified immunity question).

Spenner v. CITY OF SIOUX FALLS, SOUTH DAKOTA

580 N.W.2d 606 · South Dakota Supreme Court · Jun 3, 1998

“To find whether qualified immunity applies, the test is to ask if the officer’s conduct violated clearly established statutory or constitutional rights a reasonable officer would have known at the time.” Id. … ” of the action, assessed in light of the legal rules that were “clearly established” at the time it was taken. ****** [0]ur cases establish that the right the official is alleged to have violated must have been “clearly

Tyron Brown v. Lee Lucas

753 F.3d 606 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · May 28, 2014

On this score, appellees are entitled to qualified immunity. Whatever rights appellants had to receive exculpatory evidence prior to entering their pleas was not clearly established. … in light of the clearly established constitutional rights.' ” Feathers v.

Vernon Linicomn v. City of Dallas

902 F.3d 529 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Sep 5, 2018

Public officials are entitled to qualified immunity unless the plaintiff can plead specific allegations demonstrating (1) the violation of a constitutional right that (2) was clearly established at the time of the alleged … immunity analysis, that this right was clearly established under the circumstances of this case at the time of the officers’ entry.

Griffin v. Petrucci

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 15, 2025

Qualified immunity shields officials from liability for civil damages brought pursuant to section 1983 “so long as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … the right was clearly established.

Regina Barton v. Chad Ledbetter

908 F.3d 1119 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Nov 14, 2018

or statutory right; and (2) the right was clearly established at the time of the deprivation.” … Conclusion We affirm the denial of qualified immunity as to Martin. We reverse the denial of qualified immunity as to Wright.

Fazaga v. Federal Bureau of Investigation

885 F. Supp. 2d 978 · District Court, C.D. California · Aug 14, 2012

The doctrine of qualified immunity was established to protect government officials “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate any clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of … The Agent Defendants argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity because it was not clearly established that Plaintiffs were “aggrieved persons.”

Toevs v. Reid

685 F.3d 903 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Apr 2, 2012

Our conclusion that defendants are entitled to judgment on the “clearly established” portion of the qualified-immunity test obviates any need to remand this case. … Because the law was not clearly established, defendants are entitled to judgment based on qualified immunity. C.

Frederick Jackson v. City of Madison

Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · May 28, 2026

We reiterate that to defeat qualified immunity, a plaintiff must point us to law that is established clearly enough “that every reasonable official would interpret it to establish the particular rule the plaintiff seeks to … Officers are entitled to qualified immunity unless “(1) they violated a federal stat- utory or constitutional right, and (2) the unlawfulness of their conduct was ‘clearly established at the time.’”

Lombardi Rest Home, Inc. v. Richter

63 Conn. App. 646 · Connecticut Appellate Court · Jun 5, 2001

II In addition, the defendants raise the question of whether they are entitled to qualified immunity. … . . . assessed in light of the legal rules that were clearly established at the time it was taken.”

Brendle v. City of Houston, Miss.

177 F. Supp. 2d 553 · District Court, N.D. Mississippi · Jan 5, 2001

Qualified immunity shields state actors from civil liability if their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. Davis v. … in light of the clearly established law.

Pisoni v. McCord

2018 Ohio 64 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jan 9, 2018

Thereafter, the burden shifts to plaintiff to establish that the defendant’s conduct violated a right so clearly established that any officer in the defendant’s position would have clearly understood that he was under an … The question is whether Pisoni established McCord’s conduct violated a right so clearly established that any officer in McCord’s position (objectively measured) would have clearly understood he was under an affirmative

Valentin Rodriguez v. Municipality of Barceloneta

236 F. Supp. 2d 189 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Sep 18, 2002

The general rule regarding qualified immunity is that government officials are immune from suit when their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory authority or constitutional rights, which a reasonable person … Therefore, the question no longer is whether the issue of the time clocks was a clearly established statutory or constitutional right, but becomes whether Plaintiff has sufficiently asserted a violation of one (or more) clearly