Case law

Opinion No.

Arkansas Attorney General Reports · Apr 12, 2002

However, district employees enjoy a qualified immunity from such liability unless their conduct violated clearly established law that a reasonable person would have known. … The immunity is "qualified" because it does not obtain where the activity is in violation of clearly established law that a reasonable person would have known. Robinson v.

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.

Aaron Salter v. City of Detroit, Mich.

133 F.4th 527 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Mar 21, 2025

A public official is entitled to qualified immunity at summary judgment when, viewing the facts in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, the challenged conduct did not violate “clearly established” constitutional rights … Clearly Established Law on Withholding Material Evidence Even if he violated Salter’s rights under Brady, Detective Olsen contends that he is still entitled to qualified immunity because, at the time, it was not clearly

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.”

R. Scott Sexton v. Ronald Martin

210 F.3d 905 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Apr 19, 2000

established for purposes of the Harlow qualified immunity standard." … In Martin's supplementary motion for summary judgment, Martin argues in the qualified immunity portion of this brief that he "is entitled to qualified immunity because it was not clearly established that he could be guilty

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

Moore v. Williamsburg Regional Hospital

560 F.3d 166 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Mar 12, 2009

Holloway, 510 U.S. 510, 514 (1994) ("The cen- tral purpose of affording public officials qualified immunity from suit is to protect them ‘from undue interference with their duties and from potentially disabling threats of … These claims fail because, even if plain- tiff established the other elements of the torts, plaintiff has not presented evidence sufficient to establish that defendants’ actions were without justification or were for an improper

Harry A. Bendiburg, Individually and as Administrator of the Estate of Carl Bendiburg, Deceased v. Pamela S. Dempsey

19 F.3d 557 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Apr 21, 1994

The court did not use the term “qualified immunity,” nor did it suggest that the law was not clearly established. Furthermore, the court submitted a special interrogatory to the jury. … The law, as established by the Anderson case in the Supreme Court, is that qualified immunity — inquiry for the qualified immunity is whether the objective, albeit, fact-specific question, whether a reasonable official could

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.

Joe Marsh, Leroy Owens v. Butler County, Alabama, the Butler County Commission

268 F.3d 1014 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Sep 26, 2001

“Unless the plaintiffs allegations state a claim of violation of clearly established law, a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal before the commencement of discovery.” Mitchell v. … We also do not take into account the debatable nature of this most basic question when we write about whether the law was clearly established for the purposes of qualified immunity. .

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

Price v. Kelly

847 F. Supp. 163 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 24, 1994

The Supreme Court established the current qualified immunity analysis in Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 , 102 S.Ct. 2727 , 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982). … As discussed, the second half of the two-part qualified immunity analysis focuses on whether or not the constitutional rights were clearly established at the time of the violation, such that defendants knew or should have

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

Raymond Kelley v. Chad Pruett

Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jan 8, 2026

or statutory right; and (2) the right was clearly established at the time of the deprivation.’” … Stopping there, the district court also did not consider the clearly established prong of the qualified immunity analysis.

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.

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.

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