Case law

Arthur Mitchell v. City of Naples

895 F.3d 365 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jul 10, 2018

“Denial of summary judgment on the ground of qualified immunity is immediately appealable to the extent that the question on appeal is whether the undisputed facts amount to a violation of clearly established law.” … Qualified immunity shields government officials from civil liability “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or 4  Case: 17-40737 Document: 00514548130

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.

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.”

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.

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

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.

Duckett v. City of Cedar Park, Texas

950 F.2d 272 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jan 10, 1992

The Supreme Court held that the first inquiry in the examination of a defendant's claim of qualified immunity is whether the plaintiff "allege[d] the violation of a clearly established constitutional right." … . § 1983 , holding that defendants were entitled to qualified immunity because defendants "could not reasonably be charged with knowledge that they might be violating a clearly established right of the Plaintiff."

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.

Cuvo v. Pocono Mountain School District

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 23, 2019

The doctrine of qualified immunity shields government officials from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … A qualified immunity determination involves a two-pronged inquiry: (1) whether a constitutional or federal right has been violated; and (2) whether that right was “clearly established.” Saucier v.

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

Lloyd v. Birkman

127 F. Supp. 3d 725 · District Court, W.D. Texas · Sep 2, 2015

Eeds, 392 F.3d 138, 147 (5th Cir.2004) (denying qualified immunity because it was clearly established that “Reporting serious police misconduct or corruption” was protected First Amendment activity); Izen v. … qualified immunity.

Cummerlander v. Patriot Preparatory Academy Inc.

86 F. Supp. 3d 808 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Feb 9, 2015

’ argument that Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. … In the context of school search and seizure, the Supreme Court in Safford set forth the standard for a clearly established law: A school official searching a student is entitled to qualified immunity where clearly established

Beatrice Luna v. Texas Department of Pub Sf

765 F.3d 531 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Aug 28, 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 or … 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.

Perez-Olivo v. Gonzalez

384 F. Supp. 2d 536 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Aug 26, 2005

The first prong of this test establishes that the qualified immunity defense provides government officials with a shield from liability “for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … After finding that there is a clearly established right, the second prong of the qualified immunity test examines the reasonableness of the defendant’s conduct in light of clearly established federal law. Malley v.

Trey Sims v. Kenneth Labowitz

885 F.3d 254 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Mar 14, 2018

The doctrine of qualified immunity shields government officials from liability for civil damages when their conduct does not violate clearly established constitutional or other rights that a reasonable officer would have … clearly established at the time of the alleged violation.

Wanamaker v. Westport Board of Education

899 F. Supp. 2d 193 · District Court, D. Connecticut · Sep 25, 2012

Qualified immunity “protects .government officials from liability where the officials’ conduct was not in violation of a ‘clearly established’ constitutional right.” Sudler v. … by qualified immunity.”

Mark v. Williams

45 Wash. App. 182 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Aug 27, 1986

The test enunciated in Harlow has effectively eliminated the subjective component of qualified immunity, establishing a purely objective standard. 4 The defendants had a right to believe they could operate as they did since … We note that this qualified immunity created in Bivens, unlike the qualified immunity enunciated later in Harlow for § 1983 actions, is based on both a good faith (subjective) and reasonableness (objective) test.

Cutino v. Untch

79 F. Supp. 3d 1305 · District Court, S.D. Florida · Jan 14, 2015

Qualified Immunity Standards Qualified immunity “offers complete protection for government officials sued in their individual capacities if their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights … In this respect, qualified immunity “ ‘gives government officials breathing room to make reasonable but mistaken judgments.’ ” Carroll v.

Ramirez v. Webb

835 F.2d 1153 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Dec 23, 1987

Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 , 102 S.Ct. 2727 , 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982), the Supreme Court established that officials are denied qualified immunity only when their alleged acts violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional … Accordingly, defendant INS agents have qualified immunity unless plaintiffs’ “rights were so clearly established when the acts were committed that any officer in the defendant’s position, measured objectively, would have

Thomas Wilkinson, Benjamin Wilkinson, by Next Friend Thomas Wilkinson and Jonathan Wiegand v. Caroline S. Russell, James Adams and Gerald Jeffords

182 F.3d 89 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jun 17, 1999

Under the Vermont qualified immunity standard, then, Russell is entitled to qualified immunity in her communications with Shanley unless Russell reasonably should have known that those communications violated clearly established … In the event that this threshold determination reveals a possible constitutional violation, “ ‘[a] qualified immunity defense is established if (a) the defendant’s action did not violate clearly established law, or (b) it