Case law

Good v. Curtis

601 F.3d 393 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Mar 23, 2010

immunity defense if he procures false identification by unlawful means . . . for such activity violates clearly established constitutional principles.” 849 F.2d at 1559. … in light of clearly established law.”

Cosme-Rosado v. Serrano-Rodriguez

196 F. Supp. 2d 117 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Mar 22, 2002

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY Assuming, arguendo, that Serrano’s actions are not covered by absolute immunity, he would still enjoy qualified immunity from personal liability for money damages. … Qualified immunity shields government officials from civil damages for performing discretionary functions “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established rights of which a reasonable person would have known

L.R. v. Philadelphia School District

836 F.3d 235 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Sep 6, 2016

, however, when public officials violate clearly established constitutional rights of which a concerns only the District Court’s denial of Littlejohn’s claim of qualified immunity. 6 Mitchell v. … “Even if none exists, it may be possible that a ‘robust consensus of cases of persuasive authority’ in the Court[s] of Appeals could clearly establish a right for purposes of qualified immunity.”60 Defining the right

Flick v. Larue

608 F. Supp. 1281 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · May 20, 1985

established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would be aware, that official can defeat a constitutional tort claim by interposing the qualified immunity defense. … unless the constitutional right he was alleged to have violated was ‘clearly established’ at the time of the violation.”

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

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

Gomes v. Wood

451 F.3d 1122 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jun 27, 2006

Annes did not violate clearly established law of which a reasonable official would have known, she and the other defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. I. BACKGROUND A. … “[W ]here the right is clearly established, a defendant should only rarely be able to succeed with a qualified immunity defense.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). 2.

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

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).

Caron Nazario v. Joe Gutierrez

103 F.4th 213 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · May 31, 2024

On the second prong of qualified immunity, i.e., the clearly established issue, we agree with the district court that Crocker is entitled to qualified immunity because his conduct did not violate a clearly … The court, however, ruled that the Policemen were entitled to qualified immunity under its second prong, that is, the clearly established requirement.

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

Valdez v. Roybal

186 F. Supp. 3d 1197 · District Court, D. New Mexico · May 12, 2016

Clearly Established Rights in the Qualified Immunity Analysis. … The Law Was Not Clearly Established and Roybal and Placencio are Entitled to Qualified Immunity.

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.

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.”

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.