Case law

Parillo v. Sura

652 F. Supp. 1517 · District Court, D. Connecticut · Feb 13, 1987

Qualified Immunity “[Gjovernment officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … “clearly established” for qualified immunity purposes is a question of law.

Dean Napolitano v. Kim Flynn, Individually and Sheila Prue, Individually and Stonewall, Inc., Kim Flynn, Individually and Sheila Prue, Individually

949 F.2d 617 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Nov 22, 1991

Because Vermont interprets qualified immunity as an immunity from suit, we hold that qualified immunity is a collateral right under Vermont law, and we, therefore, have jurisdiction over the Officers’ appeal. … Their actions did not violate any of Napolitano’s clearly established rights under Vermont law. We hold, therefore, that the Officers are entitled to immunity from suit on Napolitano’s state law claims.

Rios v. Jenkins

390 F. Supp. 3d 714 · District Court, W.D. Virginia · Jul 15, 2019

The doctrine of qualified immunity shields government officials from *723 civil damages liability "so long as their conduct 'does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … Accordingly they "cannot be considered in deciding whether particular conduct violated clearly established law for purposes of adjudging entitlement to qualified immunity." Booker v. S.C.

Art Rojas v. City of Ocala, Florida

40 F.4th 1347 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jul 22, 2022

Hale’s “contact is sufficient to establish the personal and in- dividualized injury necessary for standing.” Pelphrey, 547 F.3d at 1280. … Be- cause the district court and the parties believed that Lemon was still shuffling about at the time, the court applied it in concluding that there was an Establishment Clause violation in this case.

Russo v. City of Cincinnati

953 F.2d 1036 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jan 15, 1992

In response, all three officers assert qualified immunity. Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547 , 87 S.Ct. 1213 , 18 L.Ed.2d 288 (1967), established that police officers enjoy qualified immunity from suits brought under § 1983. … overcome a qualified immunity claim.

Word of Faith Fellowship, Inc. v. Rutherford County Department of Social Services

329 F. Supp. 2d 675 · District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Jun 10, 2004

The alleged threats and harassment clearly constitute injuries to Plaintiffs. Therefore, Plaintiffs have properly alleged a cause of action under 42 U.S.C. § 1985 (3). D. Qualified immunity. … toward constitutional rights, those rights must be clearly established.

Matusak v. Daminski

Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jan 29, 2026

Qualified Immunity Framework Qualified immunity shields government officials from liability for civil damages if “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … Murphy and Unterborn are therefore entitled to qualified immunity. 8 8 Our case law would still permit us to conclude that the officers are entitled to qualified immunity even if the law was clearly established in the

P.B. v. Koch

96 F.3d 1298 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Sep 27, 1996

Koch moved for qualified immunity, contending that his. conduct did not violate clearly established constitutional rights. … Determining whether a public official is entitled to qualified immunity “requires a two-part inquiry: (1) Was the law governing the state official’s conduct clearly established?

Cox v. Wilson

971 F.3d 1159 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Aug 19, 2020

In concluding that Wilson was entitled to qualified immunity, the panel relies solely on the second prong of the qualified immunity inquiry—whether the constitutional right violated “was clearly established at the time … Yet the Pauly officers were protected by qualified immunity because of the absence of clearly established law prohibiting their conduct.

Karen Kennedy v. Los Angeles Police Department City of Los Angeles James J. King Stanley A. Schott

887 F.2d 920 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Oct 11, 1989

They advance two bases to support this contention: *923 (1) that probable cause to arrest was established as a matter of law; and (2) that they were entitled to qualified immunity as a matter of law. … Our preceding discussion about the obvious lack of probable cause is dispositive of the qualified immunity question.

Driever v. United States of America

District Court, District of Columbia · May 14, 2021

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 … Jan. 15, 1997). 7 was clearly established for qualified-immunity purposes.” Daugherty v. Sheer, 891 F.3d 386, 390 (D.C. Cir. 2018) (cleaned up).

Mastroianni v. Bowers

160 F.3d 671 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Nov 13, 1998

Second, appellants contend that even if absolute 3 immunity does not protect them, they are entitled to qualified immunity because they did not violate any clearly established … Qualified immunity A.

Ransom v. Davies

816 F. Supp. 681 · District Court, D. Kansas · Mar 30, 1993

Because plaintiff fails to show defendants violated any clearly established right, defendants are entitled to qualified immunity against plaintiffs claim for damages. See Rucker v. … Johnson, 724 F.Supp. 568 (N.D.Ill.1989) (defendants ensured of qualified immunity where existing legal precedent did not clearly establish reliability of immunoassay urinalysis testing).

Alabama Ex Rel. Graddick v. Veterans Administration

648 F. Supp. 1208 · District Court, M.D. Alabama · Nov 7, 1986

The federal defendant, VA, also raises the issue of sovereign immunity. … of such agencies, Congress’ intention to waive sovereign immunity could not be more clearly established.

Brennan v. Hobson

470 U.S. 1084 · Supreme Court of the United States · Mar 25, 1985

Thomas ex rel. Thomas v. Roberts

323 F.3d 950 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Mar 10, 2003

The “clear” requirement stems from the fact that the purpose of qualified immunity is to protect government officials performing discretionary functions from civil liability when their actions violate no “clearly established … Plaintiffs insist that “consensus or persuasive authority” from other circuits may create clearly established law.

Smith v. Montgomery County, Md.

573 F. Supp. 604 · District Court, D. Maryland · Oct 26, 1983

Under the defense of qualified immunity, McGuckian is “shielded from liability insofar as [his] conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known … The Supreme Court has stated that, in determining whether a defendant is entitled to qualified immunity, a court must “determine, not only the currently applicable law, but whether that law was clearly established at the

Johnson v. City of Fayetteville

91 F. Supp. 3d 775 · District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Mar 4, 2015

Qualified immunity provides government officials with immunity from suit for money damages “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable officer would … Nor can the court answer the second qualified immunity inquiry — whether the right was clearly established at the time of the official’s conduct — in Officer Koehler’s favor. Messerschmidt v.

Garcia v. Jane & John Does

Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Aug 21, 2014

Qualified Immunity “Qualified immunity protects public officials from liability for civil damages when one of two conditions is satisfied: (a) the defendant’s action did not violate clearly established law, or ( … Thus, an officer is protected by qualified immunity unless (1) his conduct violated “clearly established constitutional rights,” Holcomb v. Lykens, 337 F.3d 217, 220 (2d Cir. 2003) (quoting Weyant v. 

Reher v. Vivo

656 F.3d 772 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Sep 7, 2011

right at issue was clearly established at the time that the alleged violation occurred. … The relevant inquiry in determining whether a right is clearly established is whether it would have been clear to a reasonable officer that his conduct was unlawful in the situation the officer confronted.