Case law

Roberts v. Source for Public Data

606 F. Supp. 2d 1042 · District Court, W.D. Missouri · Dec 1, 2008

“Clearly-established” rights are at issue in determining qualified immunity. See discussion of Qualified Immunity, infra. … Qualified Immunity Finally, Davis argues that Plaintiffs’ DPPA claim against him is barred by qualified immunity.

Strathie v. Department of Transportation of Pennsylvania

547 F. Supp. 1367 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 1, 1982

Thus, under Wood , the immunity defense would be unavailable to defendants if the constitutional rights allegedly infringed by them were clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct, if they knew or should have … that their actions would violate clearly established constitutional rights.

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.

O'Connor v. Chicago Transit Authority

778 F. Supp. 967 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Nov 13, 1991

Qualified Immunity on the First Amendment Claim Defendants claim that they are entitled to qualified immunity on the first amendment claim. Under Harlow v. … clearly established).

Crump v. Passaic County

147 F. Supp. 3d 249 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Dec 2, 2015

(2) that the right was ‘clearly established’ at the time of the challenged conduct.” … Courts have been instructed “not to define clearly established law at 'a high level of generality.” Id. There is no clearly established law that the alleged conduct here violated the Fourth Amendment.

Massey v. Banning Unified School District

256 F. Supp. 2d 1090 · District Court, C.D. California · Mar 28, 2003

If a violation has been alleged, a defendant is not entitled to qualified immunity if the right was clearly established at the time of the violation. Id. at 200-201, 121 S.Ct. 2151 . … In their motion, Defendants focus their qualified immunity argument on the contention that the right to be free of sexual orientation-based discrimination is not clearly established because there is no “closely analogous

Stella v. Kelley

63 F.3d 71 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Aug 23, 1995

Thus, the doctrine of qualified immunity limits a plaintiff's damages against state actors "insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … The meaning of the adjectival phrase "clearly 4 established," as it operates in the qualified immunity arena, has not always been clearly established.

Opinion No.

Arkansas Attorney General Reports · Dec 10, 2002

The test for the applicability of qualified immunity turns upon the "objective legal reasonableness of the action," assessed in light of legal rules that were "clearly established" at the time the action was taken. … The immunity is "qualified" because it does not obtain where the activity is in violation of clearly established law that a reasonable person would have known. Robinson v.

Lewis v. Delgado

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jan 7, 2026

The district court refused to grant qualified immunity to the officers at the summary-judgment stage. Because the officers did not violate any clearly established law by handcuffing Lewis, we REVERSE. … With or without notice, the Officers’ conduct does not amount to a violation of clearly established law. 3 The district court should have granted qualified immunity to the Officers.

Brown v. Thompson

868 F. Supp. 326 · District Court, S.D. Georgia · Oct 17, 1994

established for purposes of qualified immunity: The clearly established law is that set forth in the discussion above. … This clearly establishes that the Magistrate did not adequately address the second prong of the qualified immunity inquiry. Brown’s deliberate indifference claim rests on three points.

Hayes v. Mercer County

217 N.J. Super. 614 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · May 21, 1987

In our discussion of the federal qualified immunity, we stated why the investigator acted in good faith here. … Plaintiffs' remaining points are clearly without merit. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E). Affirmed.

Nunez Gonzalez v. Vazquez Garced

389 F. Supp. 2d 214 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Sep 8, 2005

Qualified Immunity Defendants further argue that the doctrine of qualified immunity bars all monetary claims against them. … 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

Pitt v. District of Columbia

558 F. Supp. 2d 11 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 2, 2008

In engaging in a qualified immunity analysis, the Court “must determine whether a constitutional right has been violated before moving to the analysis of whether a right was ‘clearly established’ at the time of the defendant … Accordingly, Detective Bovino is entitled to qualified immunity on this claim.

Mckinney v. Dekalb County

997 F.2d 1440 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 17, 1993

Baldwin County Bd. of Educ., 908 F.2d 1499 , 1509 (11th Cir.1990). 6 The issue on this appeal of a denial of summary judgment based on qualified immunity is a purely legal one: first, whether there was a clearly established … a claim of violation of clearly established law.

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.

Cheyenne Johnson v. Mount Pleasant Pub. Schs.

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Sep 30, 2025

So, unless Johnson has stated a legally viable claim of a violation of a clearly established right, with supporting precedent, Russell is entitled to qualified immunity. … He did not raise a “clearly established” argument at all, nor did he argue any aspect of qualified immunity based on X.M.’s facts.

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

Ethan James Charles v. Jeff Johnson

18 F.4th 686 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Nov 16, 2021

To lose qualified immunity, the circumstances must show that the force was clearly excessive. See Post v. … Once we determined that the use of force was ex- cessive, the next question in the qualified immunity analysis asks whether the officer violated clearly established law.

Charles McManemy v. Bruce Tierney

970 F.3d 1034 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Aug 17, 2020

In an appeal from a summary-judgment ruling on qualified immunity, we typically credit the plaintiff’s version of the facts. See id. at 378. … See Blazek, 761 F.3d at 925 (holding that jerking a non-resisting suspect from the floor to his bed after he was handcuffed and posed no threat violated clearly established law); Krout, 583 F.3d at 566 (“It was clearly established

Robert Shumate v. City of Adrian, Mich.

44 F.4th 427 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 10, 2022

On appeal, Officer Powers asserts that he is entitled to qualified immunity because the force was not unconstitutionally excessive or, alternatively, that the law violated was not clearly established. … Powers’ use of force amounted to a violation of Shumate’s clearly established rights—the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis.