Case law

Jared Fishman v. DC

Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Aug 11, 2026

The district court denied the officers qualified immunity, ruling that clearly established law required the officers to release Fishman before they did. … For qualified-immunity purposes, the question is whether the officers’ actions were so manifestly unreasonable as to violate clearly established Fourth Amendment principles.

Lawny Lamar Browning v. Richard A. Vernon, Director Ron McKinsey

44 F.3d 818 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jan 10, 1995

Vernon and McKinsey contend that they are entitled to qualified immunity from damages because the allegations in the complaint do not constitute violations of a clearly established liberty interest protected by the Due Process … clearly established?

Wilson v. Wright

998 F. Supp. 650 · District Court, E.D. Virginia · Mar 19, 1998

Prison officials performing discretionary functions enjoy qualified immunity if their conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”' … Thus, in determining whether a state actor is entitled to qualified immunity, a court “must (1) identify the right allegedly violated, (2) determine whether the constitutional right was clearly established at the time of

Roska v. Peterson

328 F.3d 1230 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Apr 29, 2003

Id. at 341 , 106 S.Ct. 1092 . 67 At the same time, where the right is clearly established, a defendant should only "rarely" be able to succeed with a qualified immunity defense. 27 V-1 Oil Co. v. … Amendment principle was "clearly established."

Gregory May v. Michael F. Sheahan

226 F.3d 876 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Sep 8, 2000

Ill Government officials performing discretionary functions are entitled to a qualified immunity that shields them from damages liability “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … were clearly established at the time in question.

Moran v. State Of Washington

147 F.3d 839 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jun 2, 1998

established" to preclude qualified immunity under Harlow and its progeny. … established" to defeat Senn's assertion of qualified immunity.

Inouye v. Kemna

504 F.3d 705 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Oct 3, 2007

Qualified immunity from civil suit is available to government officials performing discretionary functions “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … The district court suggests that Kerr did not provide adequate notice because the court there granted qualified immunity, holding that the law was not yet clearly established.

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.

Kevin Chestnut v. Officer Dawain Wallace

947 F.3d 1085 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jan 21, 2020

When Wallace moved for summary judgment on the ground of qualified immunity, a defense that protects an individual defendant from suit when his conduct does not violate clearly established constitutional rights, see White … Wallace’s questioning and detention of Chestnut was not objectively unreasonable in light of clearly established law. Officer Wallace is thus entitled to qualified immunity.

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.”

Culberson v. Clay County

98 F.4th 281 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Apr 8, 2024

“The second prong of the qualified-immunity analysis asks whether the right in question was ‘clearly established’ at the time of the violation.” Id. at 656 (quoting Hope v. Pelzer, 536 U.S. 730, 739 (2002)). … Furthermore, even if Culberson had used Brown to argue there was a violation of clearly established law, that case did not address whether jail staff were entitled to qualified immunity because only the supervising sheriff

Michael C. v. Gresbach

526 F.3d 1008 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · May 19, 2008

The defendants responded that their conduct did not violate any clearly established constitutional rights, and that therefore they were protected by qualified immunity. Both parties moved for summary judgment. … If the right was “clearly established,” the official is not entitled to qualified immunity from suit. A.

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.

Young v. Brighton School District 27J

325 P.3d 571 · Supreme Court of Colorado · May 19, 2014

Because governmental immunity established by the CGIA derogates Colorado's common law, we strictly construe the Act's immunity provisions, and as a logical corollary, we broadly construe its waiver provisions. … 10-106(1)(b)) and the waiver for a dangerous condition of a jail (section 24-10-106(1)(e)). 121 If the consideration of one waiver were intended to preclude the consideration of all other waivers, providing waivers that clearly

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

Coleman v. Rieck

253 F. Supp. 2d 1101 · District Court, D. Nebraska · Mar 24, 2003

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity shields governmental officials from personal liability if their actions, even if unlawful, were “nevertheless objectively reasonable in light of the clearly established law at the time … The officers may still be entitled to qualified immunity if Coleman’s rights were not clearly established at the time of the incident.

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.

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

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.