Case law

Matrisciano v. Randle

569 F.3d 723 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jun 26, 2009

entitled to qualified immunity. … Because the violation of a constitutional right was not clearly established at the relevant time, the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. III.

Airday v. The City Of New York

District Court, S.D. New York · Sep 13, 2019

Qualified immunity shields a government official from money damages when his conduct did “not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … A defendant has qualified immunity from a due-process claim when it was not clearly established at the time of the alleged deprivation that the purported property or liberty interest of which the plaintiff was deprived

Summer Gorman v. State of Mississippi

892 F.3d 172 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jun 6, 2018

“‘Qualified immunity attaches when an official’s conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’” Kisela v. Hughes, 138 S. … To defeat qualified immunity in a Fourth Amendment claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the plaintiff must demonstrate both a bona fide Fourth Amendment violation on the facts alleged and that the violation was clearly established

Calabretta v. Floyd

189 F.3d 808 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Aug 26, 1999

They claim qualified immunity on the ground that there is no clearly established principle to the contrary. The principle they urged is too broad. … It is not clear that a conflict among other circuits would create qualified immunity where clearly established law in this circuit would preclude it, 19 but even if it could, these cases would not establish such an open question

Livingood v. Meece

477 N.W.2d 183 · North Dakota Supreme Court · Nov 12, 1991

Meece asserts that he is entitled to qualified immunity under the circumstances of this case. … If the law was clearly established, the immunity defense ordinarily should fail, since a reasonably competent public official should know the law governing his conduct.

Estate Frank P. Lagano v. Bergen County Prosecutors Offi

769 F.3d 850 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Oct 15, 2014

Mordaga responded that he is entitled to qualified immunity on the state-created danger claims because the Estate failed to establish either a violation of a constitutional right, or that the constitutional right was clearly … The District Court focused on the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis, holding that the constitutional right claimed to have been violated was not clearly established at the time of Lagano’s murder.

Omar v. Casterline

288 F. Supp. 2d 775 · District Court, W.D. Louisiana · Sep 11, 2003

In considering the defendants’ qualified immunity claim, we must remain cognizant of the fact that the “qualified ... immunity doctrine was established to reconcile two competing interests. … that the official’s actions violated clearly established federal law.

Thompson v. Souza

111 F.3d 694 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Apr 16, 1997

If it was not clearly established, the official is entitled to immunity from suit. … Thus, an official is denied qualified immunity only if the law was clearly established and a reasonable official could not have believed the conduct was lawful.

Rita Carroll v. Fredrick W. Pfeffer

262 F.3d 847 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Aug 23, 2001

Qualified immunity is a defense available to government officials who can prove that their conduct did “not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … Next, Carroll asserts that Officer Pfeffer was not entitled to summary judgment based upon qualified immunity because he violated her clearly established constitutional right to freedom of speech by retaliating against her

Randle v. Tregre

147 F. Supp. 3d 581 · District Court, E.D. Louisiana · Dec 2, 2015

The affirmative defense of qualified immunity, asserted by all of the defendants, if established, precludes li'ability'for damages on all of plaintiffs federal law claims against defendants in their .individual capacities … of the defendants was objectively unreasonable in light of .clearly established law.”

Elkins v. District of Columbia

690 F.3d 554 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Aug 10, 2012

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 person would have known … The district court denied Williams-Cherry qualified immunity on the ground that it has long been clearly established that seizing items based on a warrant that does not authorize such seizure is unconstitutional.

Tamala Jones v. Logan Kulesa

Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jun 18, 2026

immunity is inappropriate where the record does not conclusively establish the lawfulness of an officer’s use of force. … violated a clearly established federal right.’”

Duerscherl v. Foley

681 F. Supp. 1364 · District Court, D. Minnesota · Jun 25, 1987

If Foley was not entitled to absolute immunity, he would certainly be entitled to qualified immunity. … Failure to show that the asserted interest is protected by the due process clause essentially establishes the defense of qualified immunity. 3 .

Steven Lefemine v. Dan Wideman

672 F.3d 292 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Mar 5, 2012

WIDEMAN district court held that Defendants were entitled to qualified immunity from suit in their individual capacities because the specific rights at issue were not clearly established at the time of the violations. … The doctrine of qualified immunity "protects government officials from liability for civil damages insofar as their con- duct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitu- tional rights of which a reasonable

B.T. ex rel. G.T. v. Davis

557 F. Supp. 2d 1262 · District Court, D. New Mexico · Jul 31, 2007

When a defendant asserts a qualified immunity defense, the burden shifts to the plaintiff, who must establish: (I) that the defendant violated a constitutional right; and (ii) that the constitutional right violated was clearly … up the clearly-established issue.

Almonte v. City of Long Beach

478 F.3d 100 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Feb 14, 2007

Qualified Immunity Based on the “Policymaker Exception” The doctrine of qualified immunity shields public officials from personal liability for official actions, “unless their conduct violates clearly established constitutional … Stated differently, an official is entitled to qualified immunity (1) if the plaintiff has not alleged a violation of a constitutional right, (2) if that right was not clearly established at the time of the conduct, or (3

Wallace v. Jackson

667 F. Supp. 2d 1267 · District Court, M.D. Alabama · Sep 28, 2009

On the other hand, if the law was not clearly established at the time of the offense, the defendant is entitled to qualified immunity. Id. at 807 , 102 S.Ct. 2727 ; Stewart v. … was clearly established at the time.

Willie Dixon, Hyon Dixon v. Deputy Sheriff Donald Richer, Deputy Sheriff David Yarbrough

922 F.2d 1456 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · May 10, 1991

"Once a defendant raises the defense of qualified immunity `[t]he plaintiff carries the burden of convincing the court that the law was clearly established.'" Powell v. … Under the qualified immunity inquiry, we must next determine whether a reasonable officer could have believed that the conduct in question did not violate clearly established law.

Elder v. Holloway

975 F.2d 1388 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Sep 17, 1992

In opposition to the officers' motion for summary judgment on qualified immunity, Elder proffered three out-of-state cases to show that the law was clearly established that a warrant was required to make a "constructive entry … Supreme Court's recent approach to qualified immunity.

Palma v. Atlantic County

53 F. Supp. 2d 743 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Jun 15, 1999

Qualified immunity “shield[s officers] 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.” … [to] determine whether [D]efendant[s][are] entitled to qualified immunity on the grounds that [their] conduct did ‘not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have