Case law

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

Young ex rel. Bucy v. Jefferson County Sheriff

318 P.3d 458 · Supreme Court of Colorado · Jan 13, 2014

by the legislature, and both clearly indicate that the good faith of any person who qualifies for immunity "shall be presumed." … To hold otherwise would impermissibly defile the legislature's attempt to immunize qualifying law enforcement officers from liability.

Mark Abbott v. Laurie J. Latshaw, Albert Diehl, Dennis George, Robert Stafford and Donald Sarsfield

164 F.3d 141 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Dec 11, 1998

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity shields public officials performing discretionary functions from § 1983 and Fourteenth Amendment liability “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or … Our qualified immunity inquiry thus proceeds in two steps. See Sharrar v. Felsing, 128 F.3d 810, 828 (3d Cir.1997). First, we must determine whether the defendants violated “clearly established” rights.

Roe v. Hamilton County Department of Human Services

53 Ohio App. 3d 120 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jul 6, 1988

“clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … a qualified immunity is appropriate, they should have an opportunity to show whether any clearly established constitutional or statutory standards were violated.

Davis v. Hodgkiss

11 F.4th 329 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Aug 25, 2021

The first such determination is “that a certain course of conduct would, as a matter of law, be objectively unreasonable in light of clearly established law.” Id. … The officer will be entitled to qualified immunity if no constitutional violation occurred or if the conduct “did not violate law clearly established at the time.” Id.

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.

Rasic v. City of Northlake

563 F. Supp. 2d 885 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jun 27, 2008

The two-part standard for qualified immunity asks whether the constitutional right allegedly violated was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation; it does not ask whether it was clearly established that the … The purpose of qualified immunity is to give public officials freedom to act — but, only so long as their actions do not violate a clearly established right.

Ratliff v. Dekalb County

62 F.3d 338 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Oct 17, 1995

the applicable law was clearly established. … The right to be free from retaliation is clearly established as a first amendment right and as a statutory right under Title VII; but no clearly established right exists under the equal protection clause to be free from retaliation

Harris County v. Michael J. Hall

Texas Court of Appeals, 1st District (Houston) · Jan 22, 2026

Governmental Immunity and Plea to the Jurisdiction Governmental units are immune from suit unless immunity is clearly and unambiguously waived by state law. City of San Antonio v. … Hall failed to establish a prima facie case of disability discrimination because he could not establish that at the time of his termination he was qualified for the job.

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.’”

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.

Christopher G. Pitt, Sr. And Tela Hansom-Pitt v. District of Columbia

491 F.3d 494 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jun 26, 2007

Hust, 477 F.3d 1070, 1079 (9th Cir.2007) (“Whether the right at issue in a claim of qualified immunity is clearly established ... is a pure question of law....”); Williams v. Ala. … The court held that it is not “clearly established” that malicious prosecution is a violation of constitutional rights, and thus the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. We affirm.

Hopkins v. Bonvicino

573 F.3d 752 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jul 16, 2009

If the right is not clearly established, then the officer is entitled to qualified immunity. … Because it was also clearly established that the officers’ conduct did not fall within the emergency exception, the two defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity on that basis either.

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

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 .

Iris Violeta Valiente v. Hon. Ramon Luis Rivera, Etc.

966 F.2d 21 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Jun 5, 1992

Claiming qualified immunity, defendant moved for . summary judgment. … As it was not clearly established at that time that such personnel actions, even if politically motivated, violated the constitution, defendant mayor is entitled to quali *24 fied immunity from damages liability with respect

Lexington-Fayette Urban County Government v. Smolcic

142 S.W.3d 128 · Kentucky Supreme Court · Aug 26, 2004

The trial court also dismissed the claims against the individual employees on grounds that they were entitled to qualified official immunity. … Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 817-18 , 102 S.Ct. 2727, 2738 , 73 L.Ed.2d 396, 409-10 (1982) (qualified immunity for presidential assistants).

Craft v. Wipf

836 F.2d 412 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Dec 30, 1987

Government officials performing discretionary functions are entitled to qualified immunity from suit as long as their conduct does not violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … “Whether an official may prevail in his [or her] qualified immunity defense depends upon the ‘objective reasonableness of [his or her] conduct as measured by reference to clearly established law.’ ” Id.

Patrick v. Miller

953 F.2d 1240 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jan 27, 1992

These clearly established principles are insufficient, however, to defeat Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment on grounds of qualified immunity. … public officials lose immunity in the face of clearly established law.