Case law

Michael Sack v. City of St. Louis

Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Sep 4, 2026

In an interlocutory appeal from the denial of qualified immunity, we have jurisdiction to decide “the purely legal issue of whether the facts alleged by the plaintiff are a violation of clearly established law.” … Qualified immunity shields officials from suit under § 1983 if their “conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Pearson v.

JaQuan Bradford v. Ilona Avery

855 F.3d 890 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · May 1, 2017

The district court decided that defendants were entitled to qualified immunity because Bradford could "not prove and has not produced any evidence that defendants should have been aware of a breach of a clearly established … A government official is entitled to qualified immunity from personal liability unless "the facts shown by the plaintiff make out a violation of a constitutional or statutory right" and "that right was clearly established

Jensen v. Jessamy

242 N.C. App. 384 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Jul 21, 2015

"The defense of qualified immunity shields government officials from personal liability under § 1983 insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … "In ruling on the defense of qualified immunity we must: (1) identify the specific right allegedly violated; (2) determine whether the right allegedly violated was clearly established at the time of the violation; and (3)

Stoudemire v. Michigan Department of Corrections

22 F. Supp. 3d 715 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · May 15, 2014

Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, “government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … In evaluating whether a constitutional right was clearly established, “[t]he key determination is whether a defendant moving for summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds was on notice that [her] alleged actions were

Johnston v. City of Houston, Tex.

14 F.3d 1056 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Feb 22, 1994

Principles of Qualified Immunity The qualified or "good faith" immunity doctrine was established to reconcile two competing interests. … Whether a government official is entitled to qualified immunity "generally turns on the "objective reasonableness of the action" assessed in light of the legal rules that were "clearly established" at the time

Wernecke v. Garcia

591 F.3d 386 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Dec 15, 2009

“The ‘clearly established’ standard does not mean that officials’ conduct is protected by qualified immunity unless ‘the very action in question has previously been held unlawful.’ ” Id. at 350 (quoting Anderson, 483 U.S. … “[A]n official does not lose qualified immunity merely because a certain right is clearly established in the abstract.” Kinney, 367 F.3d at 350 .

McBride v. Village of Michiana

100 F.3d 457 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Nov 14, 1996

After remand, the defendants then filed a motion for summary judgment, this time seeking dismissal of McBride’s claims on the basis of qualified immunity because of their belief that “there was no clearly established law … S. -, 115 S.Ct. 1400 , 131 L.Ed.2d 288 (1995), this court then stated that the “right of free speech was ‘clearly established’ for qualified immunity purposes.

Lodato v. Ortiz

314 F. Supp. 2d 379 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Apr 16, 2004

established right, summary judgment based on qualified immunity is inappropriate in this case. … determine whether the alleged constitutional right is clearly established.

Courtney Adams v. Blount Cty., Tenn.

946 F.3d 940 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jan 8, 2020

standard and violated Edwards’s clearly established rights. … Defendant Burns asserts “the defense of qualified immunity, which shields government officials from ‘liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights

Conner v. Rodriguez

891 F. Supp. 2d 1228 · District Court, D. New Mexico · Dec 8, 2011

is entitled to qualified immunity. … City of Madera, 655 F.Supp.2d 1109 (E.D.Cal.2009), granted the officer qualified immunity because it was not clearly established that accidental use of a pistol instead of a taser violated the Fourth Amendment, and the circuit

Ciarametaro v. City of Gloucester

87 F.4th 83 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Nov 28, 2023

The district court held that the City Officials were therefore entitled to qualified immunity. … was "clearly established" at the time of the challenged conduct.

Frederick A. Siegert, ph.d. v. H. Melvyn Gilley, ph.d.

895 F.2d 797 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Apr 16, 1990

The court concluded that “[Gil-ley’s] qualified immunity defense therefore fails,” id., and that Siegert had established a proper basis for a Bivens claim. Id. at 1419. Defendant then filed this appeal. … Instead, to overcome the qualified immunity that ordinarily attaches to government officials performing discretionary functions, a plaintiff must show that the defendant violated “clearly established statutory or constitutional

Turner v. Scott

119 F.3d 425 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 16, 1997

Turner, does not establish a prima facie case against Officer Scott, then Officer Scott is entitled to qualified immunity as a matter of law. … The issue on a claim of qualified immunity is not solely whether the right alleged to be violated was clearly established.

Matthews v. City of New York

889 F. Supp. 2d 418 · District Court, E.D. New York · Sep 5, 2012

Moreover, “ ‘[e]ven where the law is ‘clearly established’ and the scope of an official’s permissible conduct is ‘clearly defined,’ the qualified immunity defense also protects an official if it was ‘objectively reasonable … As noted supra, “the qualified immunity inquiry turns on whether the defendants’ actions were objectively reasonable under clearly established law; and the clearly established law of excessive force itself hinges on the reasonableness

O'Donnell v. Knott

283 F. Supp. 3d 286 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 4, 2017

qualified immunity because the complaint does not plausibly allege that they violated Plaintiff's clearly established First Amendment rights. … In sum, Plaintiff has sufficiently alleged a violation of her clearly established constitutional rights. Accordingly, the detectives' qualified immunity defense will be denied, without prejudice. 10 C.

Kennedy v. City of Ridgefield

411 F.3d 1134 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jun 22, 2005

If Shields’s conduct did not violate Plaintiffs clearly established constitutional rights, he is entitled to qualified immunity. We now turn to those questions. B. … This doctrine was clearly established by the time the events of this case took place. Accordingly, the trial court’s denial of Shields’s motion for summary judgment based on qualified immunity is hereby AFFIRMED.

Hill v. Taconic Developmental Disabilities Services Office

283 F. Supp. 2d 955 · District Court, S.D. New York · Sep 22, 2003

Leonard, holding that a supervisor defendant is shielded by qualified immunity unless; (1) the law violated by the defendant’s subordinate is clearly established and (2) the supervisory liability doctrine under which the … If they were, then McNeill violated clearly established law.

Galvez v. Bruce

552 F.3d 1238 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Dec 18, 2008

DISCUSSION Qualified immunity shields government officials from liability when they are performing discretionary functions and their actions “‘[do] not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights … The Supreme Court has instructed that courts should not proceed to the third step of the qualified immunity inquiry – whether the law at the time of the events clearly established such a violation – unless they find that

Earl v. Gusman

228 So. 3d 268 · Louisiana Court of Appeal · Sep 27, 2017

Further, the court found that Earl |.Jailed to establish that Sheriff Gusman was not entitled to the application of the doctrines of qualified immunity or force majeure. This appeal follows. … Earl also argues that the trial court erred in applying the doctrine of qualified immunity. Louisiana Revised Statute 9:2798.1, provides in part; B.

Stonecipher v. Valles

759 F.3d 1134 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jul 1, 2014

When a defendant raises qualified immunity as a defense, “a plaintiff must properly allege a deprivation of a constitutional right and must further show that the constitutional right was clearly established at the time … the legal rules that were ‘clearly established’ at the time it was taken.”