Case law

Adam Urda v. Jeffrey Sokso

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jul 22, 2025

Yet qualified immunity shields police from such claims unless they (1) violated a right (2) that was clearly established at the time. Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982). … The District Court denied qualified immunity because it held that it is clearly established that people cannot be arrest- ed or prosecuted without probable cause.

Military Circle Pet Center No. 94, Inc. v. Cobb County

665 F. Supp. 909 · District Court, N.D. Georgia · May 20, 1987

Because plaintiff has presented evidence that defendants committed acts in violation of plaintiff’s clearly established constitutional and statutory rights, defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity from plaintiff … Because a defendant is not entitled to qualified immunity if he violates clearly established constitutional or statutory rights, defendants’ argument regarding Defendant Head’s "prosecutorial immunity” and lack of unconstitutional

Julian C. Lee v. Jake Gregory, United States of America, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation

363 F.3d 931 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Apr 7, 2004

Gregory moved for summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds. … Although the facts in Mendocino Environmental Center are different from the facts in issue here, “[a]n officer is not entitled to qualified immunity on the grounds that the law is not clearly established every time a novel

McClennon v. Kipke

821 F. Supp. 2d 1101 · District Court, D. Minnesota · Oct 31, 2011

Seizing on Chambers, the Individual Defendants argue they are entitled to qualified immunity here because (1) McClennon suffered only de minimis injuries and (2) it was not clearly established on December 20, 2006, that inflicting … to qualified immunity on the excessive-force claim.

Olaniyi v. District of Columbia

416 F. Supp. 2d 43 · District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 17, 2006

However, the officers are entitled to qualified immunity from suit “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established ... constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … “The threshold inquiry a court must undertake in a qualified immunity analysis is whether [the] plaintiffs allegations, if true, establish a constitutional violation.” Hope v.

Thomas Howell v. Town of Ball

827 F.3d 515 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jul 1, 2016

Regarding the second prong of qualified immunity analysis, “a defendant cannot be said to have violated a clearly established right unless the right’s contours were sufficiently definite that any reasonable official in the … The court ultimately concluded that the Board defendants were entitled to qualified immunity because, at the time Howell was fired, it was not clearly established whether his involvement in the FBI investigation was protected

West v. Phillips

883 F. Supp. 308 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Aug 26, 1994

The Applicability of Qualified Immunity to the Defendants The Supreme Court established the modern doctrine of qualified immunity in Harlow v. Fitzgerald, supra. … The test for determining qualified immunity in Harlow, Anderson, and Casteel focuses on the violation of a “clearly established” constitutional right, not a “clearly established” affirmative defense. 11 In support of her

Palmer v. Sanderson

9 F.3d 1433 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Nov 23, 1993

Qualified Immunity Law enforcement officials sued under § 1983 are entitled to qualified immunity if (1) the “right” they allegedly violated was not “clearly established” at the time of the violation, or (2) if a reasonable … Sanderson and Morrisette argue that the district court erred in denying their motion for summary judgment based on qualified immunity because (1) the Fourth Amendment’s protection against excessive force was not clearly established

William T. Broderick v. Francis Roache, Arthur Morgan, Jr.

996 F.2d 1294 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Jun 18, 1993

Tirado-Delgado, 982 F.2d 34, 38 (1st Cir.1993) (awarding defendant qualified immunity from damage claim because the implicated constitutional right was not clearly established at the time of the complained of acts). … Intent and Qualified Immunity Morgan’s first argument, that the question of his intent is immaterial to the qualified immunity analysis, is premised upon a broad reading of certain language in Harlow .

Rhein v. Coffman

118 F. Supp. 3d 1093 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Aug 6, 2015

Coffman also is correct that even if his post-revocation conduct violated Rhein’s due process rights, he is entitled to qualified immunity because he did not violate clearly established law. I. … clearly established law.

Trevino v. Gates

798 F. Supp. 621 · District Court, C.D. California · Aug 7, 1992

established law. … Under Harlow , the council members would be entitled to qualified immunity for acts in the course of their duties “insofar as their conduct [did] not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which

Price v. County of San Diego

990 F. Supp. 1230 · District Court, S.D. California · Jan 8, 1998

immunity. 23 Qualified immunity protects government officials from lawsuits based on their conduct in situations in which they exercise discretion, insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established rights. … If the right was not clearly established, then the deputies are entitled to qualified immunity. See Romero v. Kitsap County, 931 F.2d 624, 629 (9th Cir.1991).

Ralph Thomas v. Frank O. Gunter Karen Shortridge, Superintendent Robert Houston, Associate Superintendent

103 F.3d 700 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jan 8, 1997

operation of penal institutions, enjoy qualified immunity. … The proper inquiry in the present case, therefore, is whether the free exercise of religion within a penal setting is a clearly established right. It has been “clearly established” since Cruz v.

Johnson-El v. Schoemehl

878 F.2d 1043 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · May 22, 1989

of clearly established law. … Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 640 , 107 S.Ct. 3034, 3039 (1987) (to overcome qualified immunity, a plaintiff must allege that the official violated a clearly established right, the contours of which are sufficiently clear that

John Hogan v. City of Corpus Christi, Texas

722 F.3d 725 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jul 15, 2013

’s motion for summary judgment predicated upon qualified immunity: “First, the district court decides that a certain course of conduct would, as a matter of law, be objectively unreasonable in light of clearly established … “Qualified immunity shields government officials from civil damages liability unless the official violated a statutory or constitutional right that was clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct.”10

Benjamin Reynolds v. American National Red Cross

701 F.3d 143 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Dec 7, 2012

The Toyota Court held, in order to qualify as disabled under the ADA, "an individual must have an impairment that 12 REYNOLDS v. … AMERICAN NATIONAL RED CROSS cal] inquiries of an employee," id. § 12112(d)(4)(A), the record clearly shows Reynolds disclosed his medical condi- tion voluntarily to Lockhart, who by all accounts was Reyn- olds’s friend.

Martin v. City of Oceanside

205 F. Supp. 2d 1142 · District Court, S.D. California · Jun 7, 2002

However, the Court finds that the officers are entitled to qualified immunity because their conduct did not violate a clearly established right of plaintiffs. … Therefore, the officers did not violate a clearly established right of plaintiffs. The *1153 officers are entitled to qualified immunity as to this claim. 3.

Crane v. City of Arlington

50 F.4th 453 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Sep 30, 2022

“The doctrine of qualified immunity shields officials from civil liability so long as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known … The second step of the qualified immunity inquiry is asking “whether the violated constitutional right was clearly established at the time of the violation.” 58 The purpose of this inquiry is to determine whether the

Gibbons v. McBride

124 F. Supp. 3d 1342 · District Court, S.D. Georgia · Aug 21, 2015

Thus, “[i]f a defendant asserts a qualified immunity defense in a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, the Court should grant qualified immunity if the plaintiffs complaint fails to allege a violation of a clearly established … established for purposes of qualified immunity); Riley v.

Hyman v. Morris

320 F. Supp. 3d 707 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 14, 2018

applicable standard for ascertaining whether a right was "clearly established" for the purposes of evaluating qualified immunity: "A Government official's conduct violates clearly established law when, at the time of the … establish a right for purposes of qualified immunity."