Case law

Stainback v. Dixon

569 F.3d 767 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jun 30, 2009

To determine whether a defendant is entitled to qualified immunity, courts must address two issues: (1) whether the defendant violated the plaintiffs constitutional rights and (2) whether the right at issue was clearly established … Only if a constitutional violation was established could a court address the second inquiry: whether the plaintiffs right was clearly established at the time of the violation.

Bobby Williams v. Robert B. Greifinger, Deputy Commissioner and Chief Medical Officer of the New York State Department of Correctional Services

97 F.3d 699 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Oct 15, 1996

Under the law of qualified immunity, govern- • ment officials may only be sued for violations of “clearly established” rules of federal law. Harlow v. … Summary judgment on the basis of a claim of qualified immunity is thus appropriate only if the court finds that the asserted rights were not clearly established, or if the evidence is such that, even when it is viewed in

Hemphill v. Kincheloe

987 F.2d 589 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Mar 3, 1993

Prison officials who have implemented a digital rectal probe policy are entitled to qualified immunity if, in light of the clearly established law at the time, a reasonable official could have believed that his conduct was … To determine whether this standard is satisfied, we recently established a two-part analysis: “1) Was the law governing the official’s conduct clearly established?

Buonocore v. Harris

134 F.3d 245 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Jan 14, 1998

Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818-19 , 102 S.Ct. 2727, 2738 , 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982), the Supreme Court held that when, as here, the law is clearly established, the qualified immunity defense “ordinarily should fail, since a reasonably … A public official who fails to follow legal advice obviously cannot rely on that advice to establish entitlement to qualified immunity.

Schmelz v. Monroe County

954 F.2d 1540 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Feb 19, 1992

Good faith qualified immunity is a doctrine that protects government employees from suit for actions that “ ‘legitimately require action in which clearly established rights are not implicated’ ” and the public interest would … Once qualified immunity is asserted by the defendants, the plaintiff must show that the law was clearly established that the defendants’ acts rose to the level of “deliberate indifference.” Edwards, 867 F.2d at 1275 .

Don Waldrop v. David C. Evans, Frank Fodor, M.D., T.G. Smith, M.D.

871 F.2d 1030 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Apr 28, 1989

The court then concluded that be *1034 cause a prisoner’s right to psychiatric care was clearly established under the Eighth Amendment, appellants could not rely on the defense of qualified immunity. Id. at 846-47 . … violation of clearly established law.

Bletz Ex Rel. Estate of Bletz v. Gribble

640 F. Supp. 2d 907 · District Court, W.D. Michigan · Jul 10, 2009

If the evidence would allow a reasonable jury to find that Officers Denny and Gribble violated Fred or Kitti Bletz’s clearly established constitutional rights, qualified immunity provides no added protection from suit or … The second step of the qualified immunity analysis asks whether the right alleged to be violated was clearly established at the time of the violation. Grawey v.

Kelley v. CITY OF WILLIAMSON, WEST VIRGINIA

221 W. Va. 506 · West Virginia Supreme Court · Nov 21, 2007

In Baker , the court recognized that “[although qualified immunity is ‘in part an entitlement not to be forced to litigate,’ when the law is clearly established, immunity from trial is appropriate only when the plaintiff … has not demonstrated any genuine issues of material fact which must be resolved to determine whether the defendant’s actions were reasonable under clearly established law.”

Occupy Columbia v. Haley

922 F. Supp. 2d 524 · District Court, D. South Carolina · Feb 7, 2013

“To escape dismissal of a complaint on qualified immunity grounds, plaintiffs must (1) allege a violation of a right (2) that is clearly established at the time of the violation.” Evans v. … Clearly Established The second prong of the qualified immunity analysis requires the court to consider “whether the constitutional right violated ‘was clearly established in the specific context of the case — that is, [whether

Nelson v. Turner

256 S.W.3d 37 · Court of Appeals of Kentucky · Jun 6, 2008

She argued that under these circumstances, she was entitled to qualified official immunity from liability. … , but whether that law was clearly established at the time an action occurred.

Howard v. Kansas City Police Department

570 F.3d 984 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jul 2, 2009

“Qualified immunity protects a government official from lia *988 bility in a section 1983 action unless the official’s conduct violated a clearly established constitutional- or statutory right of which a reasonable person … was clearly established at the time of the deprivation.

Marcus Evans v. Lorenetta Smith

Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Aug 22, 2025

And second, was the right clearly established at the time? If either answer is no, then qualified immunity applies.” Id. (cleaned up). … Under this Court’s precedent on the clearly established prong, officers are entitled to qualified immunity unless “the violative nature of [the] particular conduct is clearly established.” See Kelsay v.

Joshua Venckus v. City of Iowa City

930 N.W.2d 792 · Supreme Court of Iowa · Jun 28, 2019

One well-established immunity is the judicial process immunity. … Against this regulatory backdrop, the abandonment of the absolute immunity in favor of qualified immunity is unnecessary to achieve Venckus's stated policy objectives.

Volpi v. Center Moriches Union Free School District

9 F. Supp. 3d 255 · District Court, E.D. New York · Mar 24, 2014

Qualified immunity protects an official from civil liability if their conduct does not “violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Taravella v. … When evaluating whether qualified immunity applies, the court must engage in a two-part inquiry: 1) whether the constitutional right has been violated; and 2) whether that right was clearly established at the time of the

Drevdahl v. City of Fairfield

District Court, E.D. California · Feb 2, 2022

“Qualified immunity protects 7 government officials from civil damages ‘insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly 8 established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. … Ct. 2042, 2044 (2015) (“Qualified 11 immunity shields government officials from civil damages liability unless the official violated a 12 statutory or constitutional right that was clearly established at the time of the

Leonel Buenrostro v. Pablo Collazo, A/K/A Pablo Collazo Marrero

973 F.2d 39 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Aug 26, 1992

Hence, state officials exercising discretionary authority are entitled to qualified immunity insofar as their conduct does not transgress clearly established constitutional or federal statutory rights of which a reasonably … The next step is to ascertain whether the right at issue was “clearly established” at the time of infringement. See Anderson, 483 U.S. at 640 , 107 S.Ct. at 3039 .

Pozdol v. City of Miami

996 F. Supp. 2d 1290 · District Court, S.D. Florida · Jan 29, 2014

To defeat a claim to qualified immunity, a plaintiff must demonstrate: “(1) that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was ‘clearly established’ at the time of the challenged conduct … To establish a defense of qualified immunity a Defendant must show, as a preliminary matter, that the challenged conduct forms a discretionary duty of his office. See infra discussion of qualified immunity in Part.

Byrd v. Cornelius

52 F.4th 265 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Oct 31, 2022

III Cornelius and Sweetin argue that we should reverse the district court and grant them qualified immunity. … Clearly Established Right Next, we address, taking the facts in the light most favorable to Byrd, whether the officers violated clearly established law when they allegedly used excessive force to arrest a

Mark Cook v. Roberta Sheldon and Nelson Saldana, New York State Troopers

41 F.3d 73 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Dec 2, 1994

We conclude that the Troopers have not yet earned qualified immunity as a matter of law because, under the facts alleged by Cook, the Troopers may be held to have violated Cook’s clearly established rights. … To evaluate the Troopers’ right to qualified immunity, we must again examine whether the malicious prosecution claim alleges a violation of Cook’s clearly established federal rights.

Opinion No.

Arkansas Attorney General Reports · Apr 10, 2001

The test for the applicability of qualified immunity turns upon the "objective legal reasonableness of the action," assessed in light of legal rules that were "clearly established" at the time the action was taken. … The immunity is "qualified" because it does not obtain where the activity is in violation of clearly established law that a reasonable person would have known. Robinson v.