Case law

Mark Nieters v. Brandon Holtan

83 F.4th 1099 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Oct 11, 2023

; and (2) whether the right was clearly established at the time.” … As the court recognizes, even if a police officer violates a federal right, he is still entitled to qualified immunity unless the unlawfulness of his conduct was clearly established. District of Columbia v.

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.

Williams v. City of Yazoo

41 F.4th 416 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jul 15, 2022

III Qualified immunity protects officials from civil liability for conduct that “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … Ct. 9, 11 (2021), but we have seen cases like this before. 6 The district court denied the defendants qualified immunity but did not address whether the law was clearly established.

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

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.”

Meyers v. Majkic

189 F. App'x 142 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jul 24, 2006

If a constitutional right may have been violated by the actions alleged, the defendant is only entitled to qualified immunity if the right was not clearly established. … A right is clearly established if it would be clear to a reasonable officer that his/her conduct was unlawful in the specific context of the case.

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

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.’”

The Estate of Jeremy Marr v. City of Glasgow

District Court, W.D. Kentucky · Jan 31, 2025

The qualified immunity analysis is a two-step inquiry: (1) whether a constitutional right has been violated; and (2) whether that right was clearly established, though the steps need not be taken in that order. … Clearly Established The second prong of qualified immunity analysis examines whether the right as clearly established. See Getz, 833 F.3d at 652 (citing Pearson v.

Painter v. City of MT

823 S.E.2d 583 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Mar 5, 2019

"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." … In the absence of such a clearly established right, the officer-defendants were entitled to qualified immunity from a 42 U.S.C. § 1985 conspiracy claim because they were employed by the same department. Id.

People Ex Rel. Feuer v. Progressive Horizon, Inc.

248 Cal. App. 4th 533 · California Court of Appeal · May 31, 2016

Proposition D bans medical marijuana businesses, but grants certain qualifying businesses a limited immunity from enforcement of the ordinance. … As set forth in the Declarations attached to these moving papers, Progressive has resolved the LiveScan issue and now fully qualifies for limited immunity.

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."

Garcia v. Dutchess County

43 F. Supp. 3d 281 · District Court, S.D. New York · Aug 21, 2014

“The second prong of the qualified-immunity analysis asks whether the right in question was ‘clearly established’ at the time of the violation.” See id. at 1866 . … to qualified immunity on the grounds that the law is not clearly established every time a novel method is used to inflict injury.”

Morton H. Halperin v. Henry A. Kissinger

807 F.2d 180 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Dec 5, 1986

The District Court granted summary judgment to . defendants on qualified immunity grounds, reasoning that the wiretap did not violate clearly established law since it had a rational nexus to national security. … We must determine whether the claims based on these requirements are subject to the qualified immunity defense. As to the warrant requirement, the answer is plain, since it was not yet clearly established.

Benjamin v. Schwartz

299 F. Supp. 2d 196 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jan 8, 2004

Koenigsmann, and qualified immunity. … Qualified immunity is available to a public official whose conduct “does not violate a clearly established statutory or constitutional right.” Richardson v. Selsky, 5 F.3d 616, 621 (2d Cir.1993).

Chappell v. City of Cleveland

585 F.3d 901 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Nov 4, 2009

Plaintiff Chappell correctly points out that the district court’s denial of qualified immunity is not based on a pure question of law, but on two clearly identified factual issues. … Qualified immunity shields government officials from liability for civil damages if their actions did not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.

County of Adams v. Hibbard

20 Brief Times Rptr. 952 · Supreme Court of Colorado · Jun 17, 1996

The qualified immunity defense should fail if the law was clearly established because “a reasonably competent public official should know the law governing his [or her] conduct.” … called for the destruction of Garrison’s residence because, in their view, avoiding clearly established procedures would be cheaper.

D'AGUANNO v. Gallagher

827 F. Supp. 1558 · District Court, M.D. Florida · Aug 9, 1993

Qualified Immunity Government officials performing discretionary functions are entitled to qualified immunity from civil damages if their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of … Thus, defendants are entitled to qualified immunity from suit on Count III because they did not violate clearly established law. 4. The Right to Equal Protection Under the Law.

Boyd v. District of Columbia

526 F. Supp. 2d 44 · District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 26, 2007

Qualified immunity “shield[s officials] from liability for civil damages insofar as [the official’s] conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have … Thus the right is not clearly established, and Robinson is entitled to qualified immunity from this claim. Accordingly, the court dismisses the plaintiffs’ constitutional claim.

Derrick Newman v. James Guedry

703 F.3d 757 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Dec 21, 2012

and on the § 1983 claim on the basis of qualified immunity. … The officers maintain that their conduct was not objectively unreasonable in light of clearly established law at the time of the incident.