Case law

Maraziti v. First Interstate Bank Of California

953 F.2d 520 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Jan 3, 1992

II 5 A federal official's assertion of qualified immunity based upon the plaintiff's failure to state a "violation of clearly established law" is a question of law. Mitchell v. … established for qualified immunity purposes."

Smith v. Deering

880 F. Supp. 816 · District Court, S.D. Georgia · Dec 20, 1994

Defendants have raised the defense of qualified immunity which requires the Court to determine whether Defendants violated clearly established Constitutional law. 1. … The test for qualified immunity is “whether a reasonable officer could have believed [the arrest] to be lawful, in light of clearly established law and the information the [arresting] officers possessed.” Anderson v.

Aho v. Anthony

782 F. Supp. 2d 4 · District Court, D. Connecticut · Feb 28, 2011

Government officials performing discretionary functions are entitled to qualified immunity if their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights that a reasonable person would have known … See Musso, 836 F.2d at 743-44 (stating that, in a qualified immunity inquiry, the appropriate question is whether it was “clearly established” that the defendant had an affirmative duty to prevent others from infringing on

ANTHONY LEO v. CAROL MICI, Commissioner of Correction, MICHAEL RODRIGUES, Superintendent of MCI-Concord, SHEILA CREATON-KELLY, Deputy Superintendent of Re-Entry of MCI- Concord, and DANNY ORTIZ, Director of the Secure Adjustment Unit at MCI-Concord

Massachusetts Superior Court · Feb 24, 2025

to interfere) with a clearly established state right through "threats, intimidation, or coercion." … See LaChance, 463 Mass. at 778 (holding defendants entitled to qualified immunity under MCRA).

Dwight L. McKee Allen L. Jones v. Henry Hart Wesley Rish Albert Masland James Sheehan Daniel P. Sattelle, Daniel P. Sattele

436 F.3d 165 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jan 6, 2006

is entitled to qualified immunity. … right was clearly established at the time of Sattele’s alleged conduct.

Gabriel Coker v. Arkansas State Police

734 F.3d 838 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Nov 5, 2013

In a § 1983 action, qualified immunity shields a government official from liability "unless his conduct violates 'clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.'" … the defendant violated a clearly established right."

Horne v. Coughlin

178 F.3d 603 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · May 21, 1999

immunity because the right was not clearly established at the time of the alleged violation. … the right was not yet clearly established.

Defore v. Premore

863 F. Supp. 91 · District Court, N.D. New York · Oct 6, 1994

Government officials pérforming discretionary functions are entitled to qualified immunity provided their “conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would … Accordingly, defendants argue that they did not violate plaintiffs’ “clearly established” rights and thus are entitled to qualified immunity.

Edward Shaw v. City of Selma

884 F.3d 1093 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Mar 7, 2018

“Qualified immunity protects government officials performing discretionary functions from suits in their individual capacities unless their conduct violates clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … Instead of clearly establishing the law against Williams, binding precedent clearly establishes it in his favor. See Singletary v.

Arkansas State Medical Board v. Byers

521 S.W.3d 459 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jun 8, 2017

To stave off summary judgment on qualified immunity, a civil-rights plaintiff must assert a constitutional violation, demonstrate that the constitutional right is clearly established, and raise a genuine issue of fact … as to whether the official would have known that the conduct violated that clearly established right.

Alford v. Haner

333 F.3d 972 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jun 23, 2003

Defendants claimed they were entitled to qualified immunity and had probable cause for the arrest. … The first question under the two-part inquiry for determining whether the officers are entitled to qualified immunity is whether the “law governing the official’s conduct [was] clearly established.” Act-Up!/Portland v.

Jean v. Collins

155 F.3d 701 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Sep 17, 1998

The approach we adopt will place parameters upon the immunity inquiry—if immunity is to stem litigation, as the Supreme Court intended, the issue of whether a right is clearly established should not send public officials … It would also violate the cardinal principle of qualified immunity — that officials may not later be subject to monetary liability when their behavior at the time did not violate any clearly established constitutional right

Brawley v. Washington

712 F. Supp. 2d 1208 · District Court, W.D. Washington · May 3, 2010

entitled to qualified immunity. … Plaintiff has shown evidence, if believed, that would demonstrate a violation of her clearly established rights, barring the qualified immunity defense. III.

St. Hilaire v. City of Laconia

885 F. Supp. 349 · District Court, D. New Hampshire · Mar 31, 1995

Accordingly, an officer is entitled to claim qualified immunity in a police misconduct case even if he acted unreasonably unless the law under which the officer’s conduct is deemed unreasonable was clearly established when … Thus, neither Gutierrez nor Garner provide clearly established law applicable to the circumstances in this case.

Gary T. Mitchell v. Bernie C. Thompson

18 F.3d 425 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Mar 7, 1994

Analysis The issue here presented is one which we are all too familiar — whether a public official is entitled to qualified immunity from a civil suit because the law was not clearly established at the time of his alleged … Under the prevailing precedent, unless the law is clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct, a defendant is entitled to qualified immunity.

Barrett v. Miller

599 So. 2d 559 · Mississippi Supreme Court · Apr 22, 1992

Vincent, Jr. and Chris Robinson, the two deputies who conducted the search, on the grounds that the Barretts failed to allege facts that established that the search by the deputies lacked good faith or violated clearly established … The deputies argue that qualified or good faith immunity can only be abrogated upon a showing of a lack of good faith belief that the conduct was lawful; that the conduct violated a clearly established statutory or constitutional

Wendell Domina, Blaise Riggs, Linden Snyder, Van Harpold, and Jerry Soule v. George Van Pelt, Individually Klayton Johnson, Individually Dale Shaul, Individually and Charles Person, Individually

235 F.3d 1091 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Dec 26, 2000

facts show a violation of clearly established law. … IV. 17 The commissioners would nonetheless be protected by qualified immunity if in early 1998 (the time of their alleged misconduct) it was not clearly established that the speech in which Mr.

Harris v. City of Balch Springs

33 F. Supp. 3d 730 · District Court, N.D. Texas · May 21, 2014

Government officials who perform discretionary functions are entitled to the defense of qualified immunity, which shields them from suit as well as liability for civil damages, if their conduct does not violate “clearly established … The court, however, will not set the action for trial until the issue of qualified immunity is resolved on appeal.

Rios v. Scott

100 F. App'x 270 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jun 3, 2004

PER CURIAM:* Joshua Rio s and Mary Canales (“the Relatives”) appeal from the district court’s grant of summary judgment based on qualified immunity. … Officer Sippel is entitled to qualified immunity because there is no clearly established constitutional right for an officer to immediately intervene when an armed inmate attacks another inmate, as the officer may need

Phillips v. Hust

588 F.3d 652 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Dec 2, 2009

Second, assuming a constitutional violation, is Hust nevertheless entitled to qualified immunity because the relevant constitutional right was not “clearly established” at the time she acted? … Rather, we proceed directly to ask whether Hust is entitled to qualified immunity. C A state officer is not protected by qualified immunity where he or she has violated a clearly established constitutional right.