Case law

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?

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).

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.

Africa v. City of Philadelphia

49 F.3d 945 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Mar 6, 1995

If the law is not established clearly when an official acts, he is entitled to qualified immunity because he “could not reasonably be expected, to anticipate subsequent legal developments, nor could he fairly be said to ‘ … qualified immunity.

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.

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.

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.

Brennan v. Hobson

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

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

Hunter Tillis v. Allan H. Brown, Jr.

12 F.4th 1291 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Sep 7, 2021

Brown’s use of deadly force was specifically circumscribed by our clearly established Fourth Amendment precedent. He therefore is not entitled to qualified immunity. A. … But for plaintiffs to overcome the bar of qualified immunity, Brown’s conduct must also have violated clearly established law.

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. 

Susan Doxtator v. Erik O'Brien

39 F.4th 852 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jul 12, 2022

But the Su- preme Court itself has held that Garner is “cast at a high level of generality” and therefore cannot clearly establish rights for the purposes of qualified immunity, except in the most obvi- ous cases. … Furthermore, we hold that O’Brien is entitled to qualified immunity because the right he is alleged to have violated was not “clearly established” at the time.

Stump v. Gates

986 F.2d 1429 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Feb 11, 1993

Appellant's App., doc. 11 at 2-3. 7 In reviewing the grant or denial of qualified immunity, this court must "determine whether defendants violated 'clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … The parties naturally characterize the qualified immunity issue differently.

Dennis O'Connor v. Rachael Eubanks

83 F.4th 1018 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Oct 6, 2023

Qualified immunity protects Eubanks and Stanton unless “(1) they violated a federal statutory or constitutional right, and (2) the unlawfulness of their conduct was clearly established at the time.” Dist. of Columbia v. … First, Vicory’s focus on individual liability supplies the wrong inquiry for qualified immunity. Under the “clearly established” prong, we should ask “what happened,” not “whom can you sue.”