Case law

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.

Beltran v. City of El Paso

367 F.3d 299 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Apr 15, 2004

In the absence of a violation of a clearly established constitutional right, Amador is entitled to qualified immunity as a matter of law. c. … of the clearly established legal rules at the time of the incident, and qualified immunity protects her from any civil liability.

Renee Gustafson v. William Adkins

803 F.3d 883 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Oct 16, 2015

Adkins is Not Entitled to Qualified Immunity   Adkins  also  argues  that  the  district  court  erred  in  deny‐ ing his motion for summary judgment based on the defense  of qualified immunity.  … The  doctrine  of  qualified  immunity  “‘protects  govern‐ ment  officials  from  liability  for  civil  damages  when  their  conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or con‐ stitutional  rights  of  which

Dexter Harmon v. Officer Dexter Payne, Assistant Director, Arkansas Department of Correction; Officer James Gibson, Warden, Varner Unit; Officer James Shipman, Deputy Warden, Varner Unit; Officer Yolanda Clark, Food Service Department; Officer Laquista Swopes, Correctional Officer

592 S.W.3d 619 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jan 16, 2020

Under that standard, Appellees are entitled to statutory immunity unless they transgress “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” See Rainey v. … The factual allegations within the complaint failed to establish an exception to sovereign immunity and avoid statutory immunity.

Bowser v. Smith

314 F. Supp. 3d 30 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · May 22, 2018

Bowser's *32 pleadings fail to carry his burden to state a claim of violation of clearly established law, and that his claims must therefore be dismissed on qualified immunity grounds. … Smith violated the Constitution, qualified immunity fails only if his conduct violated clearly established law in those particular circumstances. Pearson , 555 U.S. at 232 , 129 S.Ct. 808 .

Moye v. Selsky

826 F. Supp. 712 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jul 2, 1993

Qualified Immunity The standards for invoking the qualified immunity defense in the Second Circuit are well established. … Public officials are entitled to qualified immunity from liability for damages if their conduct does not violate a clearly established statutory or constitutional right. Weg v.

Sweatt v. Bailey

876 F. Supp. 1571 · District Court, M.D. Alabama · Jan 31, 1995

Clearly Established Law The court now turns to the clearly established law prong of the qualified immunity test. … Because it is not clearly established that the first amendment places constraints on nonfeasance, however, the court grants Bailey qualified immunity on this claim. b.

Estate of Redd v. Love

62 F. Supp. 3d 1268 · District Court, D. Utah · Oct 15, 2014

Qualified Immunity Defendants contend that they are entitled to qualified immunity. … Agent Barnes is entitled to qualified immunity on this claim.

Chateaubriand v. Gaspard

97 F.3d 1218 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Oct 7, 1996

of qualified immunity. 11 The Caucus leaders interlocutorily appeal from the district court's order denying them summary judgment based on absolute and qualified immunity. … The district court further denied summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds because "discharging a public employee in retaliation for protected speech violated clearly established law of which a reasonable person would

McGrath v. Scott

250 F. Supp. 2d 1218 · District Court, D. Arizona · Mar 12, 2003

In Harlow , the Supreme Court established the test for qualified immunity as whether the official violated “clearly established [federal] statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … Here, State Defendants asserted the affirmative defense of qualified immunity. Therefore, the burden of persuasion shifted to Plaintiff to establish a violation of a clearly established federal right.

Roth v. Guzman

650 F.3d 603 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 13, 2011

Qualified immunity protects government officials and employees performing discretionary functions “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … Relying on the Eleventh Circuit decision in Collier affirming the denial of qualified immunity to state officials for disclosures under the DPPA, the district court concluded that the plain language of the DPPA clearly established

Nevarez v. Dorris

135 F.4th 269 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Apr 18, 2025

Thus, no law clearly established the Fourth Amendment violation alleged by Plaintiffs at the time the warrants were sought, so the Troopers are entitled to qualified immunity. … Qualified Immunity The majority concludes that Julie is unable to show a clearly established right under the second prong of qualified immunity.

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. Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority

437 Mass. 396 · Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · Aug 2, 2002

Qualified immunity. … Although the defendants claim qualified immunity as to all claims, the only remaining claim to which qualified immunity may , apply is Daniella’s excessive force claim.

Santos v. Zabbara

984 F. Supp. 2d 106 · District Court, E.D. New York · Oct 28, 2013

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity shields Defendants, as “government officials performing discretionary functions,” from liability for damages under Section 1983 “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established … “An officer conducting a search is entitled to qualified immunity where clearly established law does not show that the search violated the Fourth Amendment.” Pearson, 555 U.S. at 243-44 , 129 S.Ct. 808 .

Gardner v. Evans

811 F.3d 843 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Feb 4, 2016

In determining whether a defendant is entitled to qualified immunity, we consider two questions: First, did the defendant violate a constitutional right? And second, were the contours of that right clearly established? … notice requirement was clearly established.

Wilbert Glover v. R. Paul

78 F.4th 1019 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Aug 24, 2023

On appeal, Paul maintains that he is entitled to qualified immunity. … Qualified immunity protects governmental officials from suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 unless a plaintiff shows that the official’s alleged conduct violated a clearly established right of the plaintiff. See Harlow v.

Potts v. Holt

13 F. Supp. 3d 445 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 8, 2014

The following discussion underscores why it would be impermissible for us to conclude that the relevant law was clearly established in anything like a manner that would vitiate a qualified immunity defense. … of the qualified immunity analysis.

Mildred I. Goyco De Maldonado v. Jose A. Rivera, Etc.

849 F.2d 683 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Jun 9, 1988

Where qualified immunity is the issue, the relevant query is whether, at the time of the challenged employment action, “it was clearly established that employees in the particular positions at issue, in light of the responsibilities … , qualified immunity shields that conduct.

Lassiter v. Alabama A & M University, Board of Trustees

3 F.3d 1482 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Oct 7, 1993

Since the contract was ambiguous, the court reasoned, it was not clearly established that the contract created a property interest. This decision reflects a misunderstanding of qualified immunity. … Because the law was clearly established, the qualified immunity doctrine cannot shield the individual capacity defendants from suit.