Case law

Nelson v. Green

965 F. Supp. 2d 732 · District Court, W.D. Virginia · Aug 15, 2013

While the court in Costanich affirmed qualified immunity for a social worker defendant where that constitutional right had not been clearly established, the court put government officials in the Ninth Circuit on notice that … When a government official asserts qualified immunity, the court must determine: (1) whether the facts alleged show that his or her actions violated a constitutional right, and (2) whether the right asserted was clearly established

Crosby v. Paulk

187 F.3d 1339 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Sep 10, 1999

Qualified immunity protects government officials who have acted within their discretionary authority from civil trials and other litigation burdens "if their conduct violates no 'clearly established statutory or constitutional … With these guiding precepts governing entitlement to qualified immunity, we examine the circumstances under which Sheriff Paulk, Commander Winningham, Agent Griffin, and Agent Kendrick acted in view of clearly established

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

Napier v. Town of Windham

187 F.3d 177 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Aug 6, 1999

There are two prongs to the qualified immunity analysis. The first prong is whether the constitutional right in question was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation. See Swain v. … Finding that no such duty was clearly established at the time of the incident, we held that the officers were entitled to qualified immunity. See id. at 28.

Smith v. McCarthy

349 F. App'x 851 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Oct 28, 2009

not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … to qualified immunity.

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

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.

Angel v. Cruse

2014 NV 25 · Nevada Supreme Court · Apr 3, 2014

established law. . . for qualified immunity purposes." … established law, and Cruse was not entitled to qualified immunity.

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."

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.

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.'

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.

Donald M. Johnson v. Bob Odom

910 F.2d 1273 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Sep 7, 1990

An appeal may be taken from a finding against qualified immunity where the issue involved is the purely legal one of “whether the legal norms allegedly violated by the defendant were clearly established at the time of the … qualified immunities was proper.

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

Beatrice Luna v. Texas Department of Pub Sf

773 F.3d 712 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Dec 19, 2014

Discussion The doctrine of qualified immunity shields “government officials performing discretionary functions. . . from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … Clearly Established Law Under the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis, plaintiffs must show that Mullenix’s actions violated a constitutional right that was sufficiently 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.

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.

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).

Pineda v. City of Houston

124 F. Supp. 2d 1037 · District Court, S.D. Texas · Jul 29, 1999

The Doctrine of Qualified Immunity Public officials, sued in their individual capacities under § 1983 are shielded from suit by the doctrine of qualified immunity unless their conduct violated clearly established statutory … “Qualified immunity protects a police officer from liability if a reasonable competent law enforcement officer would not have known that his actions violated clearly established law.” Harper v.

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.