Case law

Bradford v. City of Seattle

557 F. Supp. 2d 1189 · District Court, W.D. Washington · Apr 4, 2008

A public official who performs a discretionary function enjoys qualified immunity in a civil action for damages, provided that his or her conduct does not violate clearly established federal statutory or constitutional rights … The Supreme Court has established a two-part test for determining whether an official is entitled to qualified immunity.

Gutierrez v. Municipal Court of the Southeast Judicial District

838 F.2d 1031 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jan 27, 1988

Clearly Established in General In Harlow v. … The Court then set forth its “clearly established” test.

Robert LOMBARDI, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY OF EL CAJON; Steven Shakowski; Does 1 Through 30, Inclusive, Defendants-Appellees

117 F.3d 1117 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jun 30, 1997

In civil rights actions, qualified immunity turns on the objective unreasonableness of the law enforcement officer’s conduct in light of clearly established law. … Harlow’s emphasis on ‘objective reasonableness’ and cases in which the ‘clearly established law3 at issue contains a subjective element, such as motive or intent.”

Carey v. Inslee

364 F. Supp. 3d 1220 · District Court, W.D. Washington · Mar 11, 2019

This does not mean that the subjective good faith defense is coextensive with qualified immunity. … For example, in a situation where a broad constitutional holding may or may not apply to a novel fact pattern, qualified immunity would apply if it was not "clearly established" that the holding extended to the new scenario

Helton v. Hawkins

12 F. Supp. 2d 1276 · District Court, M.D. Alabama · Jul 15, 1998

As established by the Supreme Court in Harlow , the test for “good faith” or qualified immunity • turns primarily on the objective reasonableness of the officials’ conduct in light of established law: “governmental officials … Where the law that the defendants allegedly violated was not clearly established at the time of the alleged offense, the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. Id. at 807 , 102 S.Ct. at 2732 ; Stewart v.

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.

Aaron Salter v. City of Detroit, Mich.

133 F.4th 527 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Mar 21, 2025

A public official is entitled to qualified immunity at summary judgment when, viewing the facts in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, the challenged conduct did not violate “clearly established” constitutional rights … Clearly Established Law on Withholding Material Evidence Even if he violated Salter’s rights under Brady, Detective Olsen contends that he is still entitled to qualified immunity because, at the time, it was not clearly

Shimomura v. Carlson

17 F. Supp. 3d 1120 · District Court, D. Colorado · Feb 14, 2014

Qualified Immunity. … Shimomura has met the first prong of the qualified immunity test by establishing that no probable cause existed to support the arrest. 2. Clearly Established Right.

Gill v. City of Milwaukee

850 F.3d 335 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Mar 7, 2017

“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 Supreme Court has rejected in the qualified immunity context.

Peppers v. Coates

694 F. Supp. 1562 · District Court, N.D. Georgia · Jun 30, 1988

If plaintiff’s allegations prove true, then Cozart has violated clearly established constitutional rights and he is not entitled to qualified immunity. … Therefore, Ewing is not entitled to qualified immunity.

Jones v. Hunt

410 F.3d 1221 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jun 14, 2005

The district court dismissed her claims against Haberman on the basis of qualified immunity, finding that Haberman’s actions did not amount to a seizure and that, even if they did, the law was not clearly established at … established law, the district court granted Haberman’s motion to dismiss on the basis of qualified immunity.

Wilson v. Meeks

98 F.3d 1247 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Oct 23, 1996

Suffice that the first appeal established the qualified immunity of the individual police officers from all of plaintiffs’ federal claims. … When a finding of qualified immunity is predicated on the basis that the law is not clearly established, it is indeed correct that “there is nothing anomalous about allowing [a suit against a municipality] to

Tlamka v. Serrell

244 F.3d 628 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Apr 2, 2001

A. 9 Qualified immunity protects a governmental official from suit when his "conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known." Sexton v. … was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation."

Joe Marsh, Leroy Owens v. Butler County, Alabama, the Butler County Commission

268 F.3d 1014 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Sep 26, 2001

“Unless the plaintiffs allegations state a claim of violation of clearly established law, a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal before the commencement of discovery.” Mitchell v. … We also do not take into account the debatable nature of this most basic question when we write about whether the law was clearly established for the purposes of qualified immunity. .

Eaton v. Estabrook

Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jul 9, 2025

immunity because it was not clearly established at the time that his actions were unconstitutional. … Qualified immunity applies unless (1) the official violated the plaintiff’s statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that “right was ‘clearly established’ at the time of the challenged conduct.” Ricciuti v.

Smith v. Howell

570 F. App'x 762 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jul 2, 2014

Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 231 (2009) (government officials are entitled to qualified immunity where “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would … “When a defendant asserts qualified immunity at summary judgment,” the plaintiff has the burden “to show that: (1) the defendant violated a constitutional right and (2) the constitutional right was clearly established.

Knussman v. State of Md.

16 F. Supp. 2d 601 · District Court, D. Maryland · Aug 13, 1998

To determine whether qualified immunity shields a public official courts should: “(1) identify the right allegedly violated, (2) decide whether that right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation, and … Under these circumstances, the law can hardly be deemed “clearly established” and, accordingly, qualified immunity is available to all of the individual defendants. 5 Moreover, contrary to plaintiffs as *611 sertion that

James Stickley v. Karl Byrd

703 F.3d 421 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jan 14, 2013

“Qualified immunity shields a government official from liability and the burdens of litigation unless his conduct violates ‘clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known … -3- clearly established when the alleged misconduct occurred.” Williams v. Herron, 687 F.3d 971, 974 (8th Cir. 2012).

Arreola v. City of Fort Worth

District Court, N.D. Texas · Jun 19, 2020

Qualified Immunity “Because qualified immunity is an immunity from suit rather than a mere defense to liability,” it is important to resolve “immunity questions at the … Ochsendorf further argues that the Fifth Circuit law is “far from clearly established” as to any such claim. Id.

Manhattan Beach Police Officers Association, Inc. v. City of Manhattan Beach David J. Thompson Harry L. Kuhlmeyer, Jr.

881 F.2d 816 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Aug 8, 1989

The only issue before us, however, in reviewing the denial of defendants’ claim of qualified immunity, is whether the plaintiffs have alleged the violation of norms that were clearly established at the time of the challenged … The Supreme Court has stated that state and local officials are entitled to qualified immunity if “their conduct [did] not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would