Case law

Rush v. Perryman

579 F.3d 908 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Sep 3, 2009

The court denied the Board qualified immunity with respect to Rush’s First and Fourteenth Amendment claims, finding that Rush’s rights under those provisions were clearly established. … The court concluded that the Board was not entitled to qualified immunity because Rush’s right to a name-clearing hearing was clearly established.

Whitney v. City of Milan

677 F.3d 292 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 24, 2012

Crider appeals the district court’s order which denied his motion for summary judgment on the basis that he violated a clearly established constitutional right, and as such, is not entitled to qualified immunity. … Qualified Immunity on a Prior-Restraint Claim Government officials are immune from civil liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 when performing discretionary duties, provided “their conduct does not violate clearly established

Huron Valley Hospital, Inc. v. City of Pontiac

792 F.2d 563 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · May 30, 1986

This is not a simple conclusion that the law is clearly established as is necessary with qualified immunity. … Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 , 102 S.Ct. 2727 , 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982), test for applying qualified immunity requires a finding that the official conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights

Bruce Patrick Samsara v. Sergeant Dale Squires, in His Official Capacity and Individually, and Sergeant Mark Kukuzke, in His Official Capacity and Individually, and City of Fairfield, and Fairfield Police Department

Court of Appeals of Iowa · Feb 10, 2016

Qualified immunity operates to immunize police officers from liability where “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known,” and in … Qualified immunity protects officers from suit unless their conduct violates a clearly established constitutional right. See Saucier, 533 U.S. at 206.

McGee v. Snyder

326 Ill. App. 3d 343 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Nov 7, 2001

Qualified Immunity Finally, defendants contend that, insofar as plaintiffs seek to recover damages, their claims are barred by the doctrine of qualified immunity. … Plaintiffs have not met their burden of showing that defendants’ conduct violated any clearly established right; therefore, we hold that defendants are entitled to qualified immunity in the present case. III.

Lawlor v. Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago

District Court, N.D. Illinois · Mar 30, 2019

Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 243 (2009) (holding that officers were entitled to qualified immunity where they “did not violate clearly established law”). … to qualified immunity on Plaintiffs’ Wiretap Act claim.

Charles Waters v. B. Madson

921 F.3d 725 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Apr 11, 2019

To overcome qualified immunity, a plaintiff must allege (1) a violation of his statutory or constitutional rights, and (2) that “the right at issue was ‘clearly established’ at the time of [the] defendant’s alleged misconduct … De La Rosa, 852 F.3d at 745-46 (examining arguable reasonable suspicion under the “clearly established” prong of qualified immunity).

Harris v. Mississippi Valley State Univ.

873 So. 2d 970 · Mississippi Supreme Court · May 13, 2004

The test for qualified immunity is two fold, with the threshold question being whether the plaintiff has suffered a violation of a clearly established constitutional right. … Whether an official is entitled to qualified immunity depends on the "objective reasonableness of the action" assessed in light of the legal rules that were "clearly established" at the time it was taken.'

Keck v. Eminisor

37 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 697 · Supreme Court of Florida · Nov 15, 2012

on the issue of qualified immunity.” … We analyzed “the nature of the rights involved,” concluding that immunity from suit involved in qualified immunity required that interlocutory review be available to an individual whose claim of qualified immunity was denied

Joseph C. Booker, D/B/A Booker Trucking Company v. City of Atlanta, a Municipal Corporation, F. M. Couvillion

776 F.2d 272 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jan 9, 1986

Even if unintended, such an effect could constitute police “intervention and aid” sufficient to establish state action. See Menchaca, 613 F.2d at 513 ; Jeffries v. … If Couvillion’s actions were within the scope of his official duties, he is immune from suit if he acted under a good faith belief that the actions were legal. See Clark v.

Estep v. Combs

366 F. Supp. 3d 863 · District Court, E.D. Kentucky · Aug 2, 2018

"Unless the plaintiff's allegations state a claim of violation of clearly established law, a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal before the commencement of discovery." Mitchell v. … of qualified immunity."

James DeLanis v. Metro. Govt of Nashville

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Nov 24, 2025

And it did not violate any clearly established law. … So long as its actions did not violate clearly established law, qualified immunity applies. Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 236 (2009).

Pierson v. Gondles

693 F. Supp. 408 · District Court, E.D. Virginia · Aug 11, 1988

Defendants raise the defense of qualified immunity on the grounds that it was not clearly established that the personnel actions taken by the Sheriff would violate the deputies’ constitutional rights. … For the purposes of qualified immunity, it would not have been "clearly established” that the plaintiffs would be entitled to any procedural protections.

Guan v. City of New York

37 F.4th 797 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jun 17, 2022

Qualified Immunity Even where actual probable cause does not exist, police officers may be entitled to qualified immunity from a § 1983 false arrest claim if their actions did not violate "clearly established … Accordingly, we hold that Boyle and Larasaavedra are protected by qualified immunity because it was not clearly established when they arrested Guan in 2017 that they had to have probable cause to arrest her for an emergency

Paul Thompson, Jr. v. Commonwealth of Virginia

878 F.3d 89 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Dec 18, 2017

Thompson’s Eighth Amendment claim on qualified immunity grounds. … Under the second prong of qualified immunity, even if an official has violated an inmate’s constitutional right, he is still entitled to immunity if the right was not so “clearly established” that “a reasonable official

Watkins v. Mitchem

50 So. 3d 485 · Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama · May 7, 2010

“An official is entitled to qualified immunity if he is performing discretionary functions and his actions do ‘ “not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known … ’] complaint fails to allege a violation of a clearly established constitutional right.

Martin v. D.C. Metropolitan Police Department

812 F.2d 1425 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Feb 10, 1987

(footnotes omitted); Mitchell, 105 S.Ct. at 2816 (defendant entitled to dismissal on qualified immunity plea unless plaintiff states a claim of violation of clearly established law). … The “clearly established law” and “objective reasonableness” facets of current qualified immunity doctrine tug in opposite directions where, as here, the “clearly established law” itself contains a subjective component.

Kincade v. City of Blue Springs

64 F.3d 389 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Aug 25, 1995

“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.’ ” Buzek v. … law, cannot be “clearly established.”

McDonald v. Bishop

District Court, D. Maryland · Mar 22, 2021

Under the Free Exercise Clause, a prisoner has a clearly established right to a diet consistent with his religious principles. Wall, 741 F.3d at 498–500. … McMillan, 502 F.2d 1326, 1331 (4th Cir. 1974) (finding that qualified immunity “has no application to a suit for declaratory or injunctive relief”); see also Cloaninger ex rel. Estate of Cloaninger v.

Jones v. Stine

843 F. Supp. 1186 · District Court, W.D. Michigan · Feb 10, 1994

They are shielded by qualified immunity. … Because the asserted right was found not to have been clearly established, the Gawloski court held the defendants were protected by qualified immunity.