Case law

Jamila Russell v. Superior Court of the Virgin I

905 F.3d 239 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Sep 25, 2018

plead a violation of clearly established law. … the right at issue was “clearly established” at the time of the defendant’s alleged misconduct.’”

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.

Hearn v. Rhay

68 F.R.D. 574 · District Court, E.D. Washington · Sep 26, 1975

to plaintiff’s burden of proving malice or unreasonable disregard of his clearly established constitutional rights. … Defendants argue that they seek immunity on the narrow basis of the extent of plaintiff’s “clearly established constitutional rights” at the time of the alleged civil rights violations and not on the basis of legal advice

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

WALKER v. REGAN

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 1, 2021

trooper was entitled to qualified immunity because his use of deadly force did not violate a clearly established right). … No. 201) where the Third Circuit Court of Appeals noted that, for the purposes of qualified immunity, “[t]o be clearly established, a right must be so apparent that ‘every reasonable official would understand that what

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.

Perez-Olivo v. Gonzalez

384 F. Supp. 2d 536 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Aug 26, 2005

The first prong of this test establishes that the qualified immunity defense provides government officials with a shield from liability “for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … After finding that there is a clearly established right, the second prong of the qualified immunity test examines the reasonableness of the defendant’s conduct in light of clearly established federal law. Malley v.

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.

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.

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

Alexander v. Margolis

921 F. Supp. 482 · District Court, W.D. Michigan · Nov 1, 1995

Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 , 102 S.Ct. 2727 , 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982), the Court held that a defense of qualified immunity depends upon the reasonableness of an official's conduct, as measured by reference to clearly established … In his response to defendants’ claim of qualified immunity, he has not alleged how the defendants’ actions alleged in his complaint have violated clearly established law.

Ali v. Oneida County District Attorney

District Court, N.D. New York · Oct 30, 2023

“By contrast, prosecutors receive only qualified immunity when performing ‘administrative duties and those investigatory functions that do not relate to an advocate’s preparation for the initiation of a prosecution or for … Kessler, 694 F.3d 161, 166 (2d Cir. 2012) (“ ‘[A]ctions taken as an investigator enjoy only qualified immunity.’ ”) (quoting Zahrey v. Coffey, 221 F.3d 342, 346 (2d Cir. 2000)).

Anthony Gant v. Daniel Hartman

924 F.3d 445 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · May 14, 2019

Benner, 913 F.3d 640, 643 (7th Cir. 2019) (affirming denial of qualified immunity). … Officer Hartman claims that he is entitled to qualified im- munity because his actions did not violate Gant’s constitu- tional rights and, even if they did, those rights were not clearly established on or before August 23,

Maropulos v. County of Los Angeles

560 F.3d 974 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Mar 24, 2009

established due process right. … established right.

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.

Dunlap v. Hilgenkamp

82 F. Supp. 2d 1052 · District Court, D. Nebraska · Jan 25, 2000

. § 1983 for their performance of discretionary functions are entitled to a qualified immunity defense if they prove that their conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … Qualified immunity is a question of law.

Farrell Ex Rel. Farrell v. Transylvania County Board of Education

175 N.C. App. 689 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Feb 7, 2006

“Qualified immunity protects public officials from personal liability for performing official, discretionary functions if the conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … Assuming arguendo that plaintiffs properly pled its claim for relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 , plaintiffs’ allegations, nonetheless, fail to establish any conduct by Haehnel that violated clearly established statutory

Maurice Hardaway v. Brett Meyerhoff

734 F.3d 740 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Nov 4, 2013

The affirmative defense of qualified immunity protects government officers from liability for actions taken in the course of their official duties if their conduct does not violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional … right, and (2) whether that right was clearly established at the time the conduct occurred.

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.

Francis v. Coughlin

849 F.2d 778 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jun 20, 1988

Defendants’ memorandum of law devoted nine pages to the defense of qualified immunity, arguing that the rights which plaintiff claims were violated were not clearly established in the years 1982-83. … In its only reference to qualified immunity, the court noted in a footnote that a prisoner’s right to have notice of and to comment on charges against him was clearly established prior to 1982, such that qualified immunity