Case law

Ogborn v. City of Lancaster

124 Cal. Rptr. 2d 238 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 22, 2002

The Individual Defendants Are Entitled to Qualified Governmental Immunity. … This immunity provision bars the Ogborns’ claim for trespassing because the warrant clearly authorized entry onto the Property and into the structures located there.

Gray v. Baker

399 F.3d 1241 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Mar 1, 2005

In particular, Baker and Nero argue it was “not ‘clearly established’ statutory law that [they] c[ould] be sued under the FMLA as individuals,” and thus they are entitled to qualified immunity from that claim. … appeal whether the challenged action by the defendant officials [wa]s a violation of federal law at all, clearly established or not.”

Nat'l Rifle Ass'n of Am. v. Vullo

Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jul 17, 2025

Vullo argues that she is entitled to qualified immunity, but the NRA maintains that she violated clearly established law prohibiting coercion or retaliation violative of the First Amendment. … But under the qualified immunity analysis, general pronouncements of law are not sufficient to "clearly establish" a right.

Hansen v. Meese

675 F. Supp. 1482 · District Court, E.D. Virginia · Dec 16, 1987

Further, the court held that qualified immunity was inapplicable because the right at issue was clearly established. Id. at 3037-38 . … The Supreme Court reversed, stating that the “clearly established law” test should not be applied at a level of generality that would undermine the balance struck by the qualified immunity doctrine. Id. at 3038-39 .

Paul Mollica v. James A. Volker

229 F.3d 366 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Oct 6, 2000

For a constitutional right to be “clearly established” for purposes of determining whether an officer is entitled to qualified immunity, the contours of the right must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would … whether the right is clearly established).

Randall R. Bradford v. Mike Huckabee

330 F.3d 1038 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jun 5, 2003

Public officials are entitled to qualified immunity in suits against them in their individual capacity as long as their actions do not violate "clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … Qualified immunity is an affirmative defense, to be upheld in a motion to dismiss only when the immunity can be established on the face of the complaint.

Lawlor v. Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago

District Court, N.D. Illinois · Mar 30, 2019

Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 243 (2009) (holding that officers were entitled to qualified immunity where they “did not violate clearly established law”). … to qualified immunity on Plaintiffs’ Wiretap Act claim.

Roberts v. City of Forest Acres

902 F. Supp. 662 · District Court, D. South Carolina · Aug 21, 1995

not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … The touchstone of qualified immunity is the “ ‘objective legal reasonableness’ of the [officer’s] action assessed in light of the legal rules that were ‘clearly established’ at the time it was taken.”

Whitney v. City of Milan

677 F.3d 292 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 24, 2012

Crider appeals the district court’s order which denied his motion for summary judgment on the basis that he violated a clearly established constitutional right, and as such, is not entitled to qualified immunity. … Qualified Immunity on a Prior-Restraint Claim Government officials are immune from civil liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 when performing discretionary duties, provided “their conduct does not violate 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

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.

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

Dodds v. Richardson

614 F.3d 1185 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Aug 6, 2010

As Justice Thomas explained: In conducting qualified immunity analysis ..., courts do not merely ask whether, taking the plaintiffs allegations as true, the plaintiffs clearly established rights were violated. … For instance, an allegation that Defendant A violated a plaintiffs clearly established rights does nothing to overcome Defendant B’s assertion of qualified immunity, absent some allegation that Defendant B was responsible

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

Galvin v. Lloyd

663 F. Supp. 1572 · District Court, D. Connecticut · Jul 13, 1987

The relevant language from Mitchell reads: "Unless the plaintiffs allegations state a claim of violation of clearly established law, the defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal before the commencement … To some extent, the parties have already addressed the substance of the “clearly established” standard in their immunity briefs: the litigants may rely on those briefs if the defendants’ qualified immunity challenge arises

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.

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.

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.

Huron Valley Hospital, Inc. v. City of Pontiac

792 F.2d 563 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · May 30, 1986

This is not a simple conclusion that the law is clearly established as is necessary with qualified immunity. … Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 , 102 S.Ct. 2727 , 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982), test for applying qualified immunity requires a finding that the official conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights