Case law

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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

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.’”

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).

LeSUEUR-RICHMOND SLATE CORP. v. FEHRER

752 F. Supp. 2d 713 · District Court, W.D. Virginia · Nov 3, 2010

When evaluating a qualified immunity claim, the district court should generally first determine whether a right “would have been violated on the facts alleged; [and] ... second ... whether the right was clearly established … Qualified immunity shields government officials from suit unless they transgress rights that are “clearly established.” Saucier, 533 U.S. at 200, 121 S.Ct. 2151 (2001).

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 .

Baldwin v. Estherville

333 F. Supp. 3d 817 · District Court, N.D. Iowa · Sep 14, 2018

In those jurisdictions, there cannot be liability unless the defendant violated "clearly established ... constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known." … In my prior ruling, as to qualified immunity to the federal constitutional clam, I concluded that it was not clearly established that Baldwin's conduct-operating his ATV in a ditch that was publicly-owned property-did not

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

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.

Koch v. Rugg

221 F.3d 1283 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 11, 2000

clearly established law." … violate clearly established law.").

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.

TM v. Noblitt

650 So. 2d 1340 · Mississippi Supreme Court · Jan 12, 1995

We are of the opinion that the lower court correctly articulated the law of qualified public official immunity, but find that the dismissal of this cause was premature. … The issue of common law qualified immunity was recently revisited in Womble v. Singing River Hosp., 618 So.2d 1252 (Miss. 1993).

Gidley v. Oliveri

641 F. Supp. 2d 92 · District Court, D. New Hampshire · Jun 25, 2009

The defendants are entitled to qualified immunity on the federal claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 because the booking-and-summons of Gidley did not implicate a clearly established Fourth Amendment right such that a reasonable … Clearly established right “Public officials are ... entitled to qualified immunity unless the facts establish that their conduct violated a constitutional right that was ‘clearly established’ at the time of the violation.

Gant v. Maness

786 So. 2d 401 · Mississippi Supreme Court · Jun 7, 2001

This, according to longstanding Mississippi law, is clearly insufficient to establish a duty of care owing to him in particular: when the duty imposed upon an officer is one solely to the public, the failure to perform it … Now, in developing his argument for qualified immunity, Gant asserts that his duties regarding Thompson's incarceration were discretionary and that he is, thus, entitled to qualified immunity.

Rivera Castelan v. Taylor

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Aug 6, 2026

Our Review Qualified immunity generally shields government officials so long “as their conduct does not violate [a] clearly established [federal] right[].” Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982). … right was clearly established.