Case law

Marks v. Clarke

102 F.3d 1012 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Dec 19, 1996

that their conduct did not violate clearly established law. … Once again, under the clearly established law of Ybarra v.

McCullough Ex Rel. McCullough v. Antolini

559 F.3d 1201 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Feb 26, 2009

The Supreme Court recently reaffirmed the long-established standard for qualified immunity in Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. _, No. 07-751 (Jan. 21, 2009). … , and, second, that it was clearly established at the time of the incident that the actions of the defendant were unconstitutional.

J.P. v. County of Alameda

District Court, N.D. California · Nov 19, 2021

See Shafer, 868 F.3d at 1117 (holding that 2 qualified immunity applies if no clearly established law exists on the issue); see also White v. Pauly, 137 S. … City of Santa Maria, 915 F.3d 12 592, 603 (9th Cir. 2019) (“[O]ur qualified immunity determination with respect to Officer Brice rests 13 solely on the ‘clearly established’ law prong; we do not reach the question of whether

Alison Dreith v. City of St. Louis, Missouri

55 F.4th 1145 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Dec 15, 2022

Qualified immunity shields government officials from suit in a § 1983 action unless their conduct violates a clearly established statutory or constitutional right of which a reasonable official would have known. … In any event, the argument does not undermine the district court’s conclusion that Dreith’s right to be free from a retaliatory use of force was clearly established at the time of the incident. D. Ct.

Johnson v. Newburgh Enlarged School District

239 F.3d 246 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jan 31, 2001

In this action, the defendants assert only the first basis — that no clearly established right was violated — in arguing for qualified immunity. 2 Of course, determining whether a right is “clearly established” is not subject … ” qualified immunity issue.

Hall v. Ryan

957 F.2d 402 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Feb 28, 1992

The defendants’ summary judgment motion argues that they were entitled to qualified immunity on the ground that the law at the time of the incident “did not clearly establish the right to have officers diagnose pre-trial … Judge Baker noted that qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions from civil liability if their actions do not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which

Krein v. Norris

250 F.3d 1184 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · May 22, 2001

Therefore, in light of this dispute, the Court is unable to determine, at this juncture that defendants' conduct did not violate plaintiff's clearly-established right to remain free from harm. 6 Krein v. … violated established law. 16 Arnott v.

Hynson v. City of Chester

827 F.2d 932 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Oct 1, 1987

The test for government officials to establish the good faith necessary for qualified immunity was recently set out by the Supreme Court. … clearly established at the time of the conduct at issue.

Killian v. Grizzle

District Court, N.D. Illinois · May 15, 2025

The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … Grizzle] violated th[is] clearly established right[].” Id. Sgt.

Hoglan v. Robinson

District Court, W.D. Virginia · Sep 30, 2022

Thus, they are also entitled to qualified immunity. … Thus, government officials “are entitled to qualified immunity under § 1983 unless (1) they violated a federal statutory or constitutional right, and (2) the unlawfulness of their conduct was ‘clearly established at the

Palmer v. Johnson

193 F.3d 346 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Oct 19, 1999

The bifurcated test for qualified immunity asks whether the plaintiff has alleged a violation of a clearly established right and, if so, whether the defendant’s conduct was objectively unreasonable. … Thus, for purposes of the qualified immunity analysis, Palmer has demonstrated a violation of his clearly established rights under the Eighth Amendment.

Front Royal & Warren County Industrial Park Corp. v. Town of Front Royal

708 F. Supp. 1477 · District Court, W.D. Virginia · Mar 16, 1989

litigation and, at the same time, they can be held liable for the violation of a clearly established constitutionally-protected right. … clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which the official knows or reasonably should be aware.”

Hansen v. Lamontagne

808 F. Supp. 89 · District Court, D. New Hampshire · Nov 20, 1992

A government official exercising discretionary authority is entitled to qualified immunity in respect to § 1983 claims only if his or her conduct does not violate *92 “clearly established” statutory or constitutional rights … When a defendant moves for summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity, it is plaintiff’s burden to demonstrate defendant’s infringement of a “clearly established” federal right.

Huerta v. Hillsborough County

720 So. 2d 276 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Oct 23, 1998

The parties agree that a government official, such as Bean, is entitled to qualified immunity from civil suit in the performance of discretionary functions when the official's conduct does not violate any clearly established … The trial court, in applying this principle of law, opined that Huerta's constitutional rights were not clearly established at the time of his termination and ruled that Bean was entitled to qualified immunity.

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.

L.G. v. Keisha Edwards

990 F.3d 1145 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Mar 18, 2021

Qualified immunity generally protects public officials from § 1983 lawsuits where the officials' conduct "does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known … We often describe the resolution of a qualified immunity issue as involving two questions—whether the official's conduct violated a constitutional or statutory right, and whether that right was clearly established.

Jordan v. Fox, Rothschild, O'Brien & Frankel

787 F. Supp. 471 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 27, 1992

Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 526 , 105 S.Ct. 2806, 2815 , 86 L.Ed.2d 411 (1985) (“Unless the plaintiffs allegations state a claim of violation of clearly established law, a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal … Harlow, 457 U.S. at 818 , 102 S.Ct. at 2738 . 12 In determining whether a constitutional right is clearly established for purposes of qualified immunity, a court must determine whether the contours of the right at the time

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).

Ratliff v. DeKalb County, GA

62 F.3d 338 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 9, 1995

court assumed for the purposes of its decision about whether the applicable law was clearly established. … The right to be free from retaliation is clearly established as a first amendment right and as a statutory right under Title VII; but no clearly established right exists under the equal protection clause to be free from