Case law

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)

Robert J. Alfonso v. Dr. John C. Lund

783 F.2d 958 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Feb 10, 1986

The finding on competency of the doctor to testify was one for determination by the court, Fed.R.Evid. 104(a); this finding should not be reversed unless it was clearly erroneous. See United States v. … Defendants argued that the proof was defective because the medical evidence failed to establish that defendants’ negligence was the cause of death.

Langley v. Adams County

987 F.2d 1473 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Mar 3, 1993

Once a defendant asserts the affirmative defense of qualified immunity, “[t]he plaintiff carries the burden of convincing the court that the law was clearly established.” [Pueblo Neighborhood Health Ctrs., Inc. v.] … Plaintiff has thus met her burden of showing clearly established law governing her First Amendment claim. Defendants assert two factual bases for their qualified immunity defense.

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 .

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.’”

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

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

Williams v. Heard

533 F. Supp. 1153 · District Court, S.D. Texas · Mar 8, 1982

With respect to the second prong, the reasonableness requirement, the court stated that qualified immunity defense is not available where the constitutional right infringed by defendants was clearly established at the time … Applying this to the facts of the case, the Fifth Circuit held that the lower court’s finding of qualified immunity was clearly erroneous because the defendant’s actions were not reasonable.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

Sorensen v. City of New York

42 F. App'x 507 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jul 30, 2002

There are three ways a defendant can establish qualified immunity. See Robison v. Via, 821 F.2d 913, 920-21 (2d *510 Cir.1987). … As explained in Robison , qualified immunity may be warranted where, although the law was clearly established, “there was, at the time of the challenged [conduct], a legitimate unresolved question as to the existence of .

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.

Brad Williams v. Horace Walters

772 F.3d 1307 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Dec 8, 2014

or statutory right; and (2) the right was clearly established at the time of the deprivation.” … established constitutional rights, Walters is not entitled to qualified immunity.

Theresa J. HEDGE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. COUNTY OF TIPPECANOE, Et Al., Defendants-Appellees

890 F.2d 4 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Nov 17, 1989

Following an unsuccessful motion to dismiss, Defendant Gibson’s counsel moved for summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity, asserting that the constitutional rights Hedge alleged were not clearly established at … of qualified immunity.

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.”

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