Case law

Kutilek v. Gannon

132 F.R.D. 296 · District Court, D. Kansas · Sep 24, 1990

It is premised on the contention that the challenged conduct was undertaken in good faith or did not violate clearly established law or constitutional rights that a reasonable person would have known. … functions will be shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known, is resolved, discovery

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.

Donovan v. Briggs

250 F. Supp. 2d 242 · District Court, W.D. New York · Feb 26, 2003

Qualified immunity shields public officials “from civil damages liability insofar as their conduct 'does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known,’ Harlow … was not clearly established in the context of the actions giving rise to the suit); Warlick v.

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

National Rifle Association of America v. Maria T. Vullo

49 F.4th 700 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Sep 22, 2022

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions from suits for money damages unless their conduct violates clearly established law of which a reasonable … Was the Law Clearly Established?

Chateaubriand v. Gaspard

97 F.3d 1218 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Oct 7, 1996

of qualified immunity. … The district court further denied summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds because “discharging a public employee in retaliation for protected speech violated clearly established law of which a reasonable person would

Caldwell v. Brogden

678 So. 2d 1148 · Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama · May 10, 1996

A qualified immunity inquiry involves two questions: first, whether the defendants were acting within the scope of their discretionary authority, and second, whether their actions violated clearly established law. … The burden then shifted to Caldwell to prove that they violated clearly established law, a burden that she failed to meet.

Conner v. Department of Commerce

443 P.3d 1250 · Court of Appeals of Utah · May 23, 2019

Department of Commerce those terms when discussing immunity conferred by the GIA. In this context, “qualified immunity” simply means “immunity subject to exceptions,” Hansen v. … ¶40 Conner also argues that the Defendants waived the governmental immunity defense when they agreed to withdraw (…continued) discretionary functions when their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or

James Spann v. George Lombardi

65 F.4th 987 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Apr 24, 2023

A public official is entitled to qualified immunity on a motion for summary judgment unless a plaintiff presents sufficient evidence to show that the official violated a clearly established right of the plaintiff. … The officials argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity on Spann’s due process claim, because Spann had no clearly established liberty interest in avoiding assignment to administrative segregation.

Wilcoxon v. City of Detroit Election Commission

301 Mich. App. 619 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Jul 11, 2013

DEFENDANT IS NOT ENTITLED TO IMMUNITY UNDER § 4 OF THE MMMA The language of § 4 indicates that a “qualifying patient” who has been issued and possesses a registry *609 identification card is immune from arrest and prosecution … In other words, the language establishing limited immunity in § 4 of the MMMA expressly conditions that immunity on the person possessing no amount of marijuana that does not qualify as usable marijuana under the applicable

Robert Kennedy v. City of Cincinnati

595 F.3d 327 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Feb 16, 2010

Page 7 Kennedy failed to show that his clearly established rights were violated. … alleged by the plaintiff constitute a violation of clearly established law.”).

Harris v. Mack

District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Sep 20, 2023

Purnell, 652 F.3d 524, 531 (4th Cir. 2011) (en banc) (“Qualified immunity protects officers who commit constitutional violations but who, in light of clearly established law, could reasonably believe that their … a constitutional right and (2) ‘whether that right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation.’ ”).

Fifield v. Eaton

669 F. Supp. 2d 294 · District Court, W.D. New York · Oct 20, 2009

The doctrine of qualified immunity shields government officials from liability for civil damages where their performance of their discretionary duties does not violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights … that it would not violate clearly established rights.

Bernstein v. State

411 N.J. Super. 316 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jan 11, 2010

[,]" and if so, "whether the right was clearly established." … In determining whether a right has been clearly established, its contours must be sufficiently clear so that a "reasonably competent officer" would have understood that he was violating a clearly established right.

Berrios-Cintron v. Cordero

976 F. Supp. 110 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Aug 27, 1997

Whether qualified immunity will protect an official from being held personally liable will depend on the ‘objective legal reasonableness’ of the action, assessed in light of the legal rules that were ‘clearly established’ … Cohalan in further analysis of the qualified immunity issue.

Michaels v. State of NJ

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jun 6, 2000

rights were not clearly established at the time of the investigation such that a reasonable person in the defendants' position would have known that they were violating her rights. … The defendants filed motions for summary judgment based on the defense of qualified immunity.

Jennifer Cruz v. the City of Anaheim

765 F.3d 1076 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Aug 28, 2014

CITY OF ANAHEIM threatening gesture, it would clearly be unreasonable for the officers to shoot him after he stopped his vehicle and opened the door.

John Larson v. Chad Holmes

Court of Appeals of Iowa · Nov 13, 2025

Also, “[u]nder federal law, qualified immunity is not a defense to common law claims.” Id. … Doe explicitly used negligence hypotheticals as examples of claims which lack a “right, privilege, or immunity secured by law” that “was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation.”

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

Johnson v. Carroll

658 F.3d 819 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Oct 7, 2011

“Qualified immunity shields government officials from liability in a § 1983 action unless the official’s conduct violates a clearly established constitutional or statutory right of which a reasonable person would have known … “Qualified immunity involves the following two-step inquiry: (1) whether the facts shown by the plaintiff make out a violation of a constitutional or statutory right, and (2) whether that right was clearly established at