Case law

Ellis v. Salt Lake City Corporation

Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Aug 5, 2025

was clearly established. … The second qualified immunity prong asks whether the law in question was clearly established at the time of the defendant’s conduct.

Slone v. Lincoln County

242 F. Supp. 3d 579 · District Court, E.D. Kentucky · Mar 16, 2017

Generally, a government official performing discretionary functions is entitled to qualified immunity in his individual capacity and is shielded from civil suit if his conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … whether that right was clearly established at the time of the offense.

John Meyers v. City of Cincinnati, Scott Johnson, Individually and as City Manager David E. Rager, Individually and as Director of Safety

979 F.2d 1154 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Nov 12, 1992

This immunity is premised upon sound policy grounds: where governmental officials have duties that “legitimately require action in which clearly established rights are not implicated, the public interest may be better served … Our reasoning in that opinion establishes that the contours of public employee speech were by no means “clearly established” in early 1988. Rather, we referred to the “current somewhat imprecise standard.”

Seal Tite Corp. v. Bressi

312 N.J. Super. 532 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jun 19, 1998

could be afforded on the basis of qualified, rather than absolute, privilege or immunity. … The individual defendants are entitled at least to the protection of qualified immunity, even if the absolute immunity afforded for legislative acts is deemed inapplicable.

Cox v. Fischer

248 F. Supp. 3d 471 · District Court, S.D. New York · Mar 31, 2017

Qualified Immunity “Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, ‘government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly … The Court concludes that Officer Murphy is not entitled to qualified immunity on this claim. 1.

Hudgins v. City Of Ashburn

890 F.2d 396 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jan 24, 1990

The Zeigler/Rich Analysis for Determining Summary Judgment Based on Qualified Immunity 29 Rich recognized that the Supreme Court established its objective-reasonableness test for determining qualified or good-faith immunity … or not that law is clearly established.

Thomas Noon v. Mayor John Smedley

94 F.4th 759 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Mar 4, 2024

Smedley and Kerns claim they are entitled to qualified immunity. … As with every qualified immunity analysis, we are tasked with a two-part inquiry to determine (1) whether a constitutional violation occurred, and (2) whether the right in question was clearly established at the time of the

Dellairo v. Garland

222 F. Supp. 2d 86 · District Court, D. Maine · Sep 4, 2002

Rennie, 264 F.3d 86, 113 (1st Cir.2001) (“Qualified immunity protects state actors ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … In other words, it is possible that Garland violated Dellairo’s clearly established constitutional rights but is immune from suit because it was objectively reasonable for him to do so because the unlawfulness of his actions

Jennings v. Jones

479 F.3d 110 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Mar 7, 2007

Prong Two: Whether the Law Was Clearly Established The second prong of the qualified immunity analysis asks "whether the constitutional right . . . was 'clearly established' at the time of the incident such … established' when assessing claims of qualified immunity" (quoting Medina v.

Sammy Ussery v. Mansfield

786 F.3d 332 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · May 19, 2015

As the parties agree, the law clearly established at the time of the extraction governs the entitlement to qualified immunity here. Further, they agree that Norman v. … summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity would be entirely unreviewable if the defendant officers conceded that Ussery’s version of the facts would establish that the officers violated clearly established law.

Sheila Hensley v. Ronald Gassman

693 F.3d 681 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Sep 11, 2012

Fourth Amendment Claim The standards for determining qualified immunity are well-established. … Clearly Established Rights The second prong of the qualified immunity analysis asks whether the right was clearly established.

Donald Tangwall v. Thomas Stuckey

135 F.3d 510 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Feb 2, 1998

Again, we shall reserve addressing whether Detective Stuck-ey acted in violation of clearly established law and, alternatively, the merits of his qualified immunity defense until later in this opinion. … We hold that Stuckey did not violate a clearly established law and that he is entitled to qualified immunity and dismissal of the lawsuit against him. The judgment of the district court is REVERSED. 1 .

Greenwood v. New York

163 F.3d 119 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Dec 11, 1998

. § 1983 ; it did so on the ground that the officials had qualified immunity. 1 We disagree with the court’s conclusion that Greenwood’s property right in his clinical staff privileges was not *121 clearly established and … “Even defendants who violate [clearly established] constitutional rights enjoy a qualified immunity that protects them from liability for damages unless it is further demonstrated that their conduct was unreasonable under

Walt v. State

751 P.2d 1345 · Alaska Supreme Court · Mar 18, 1988

on the qualified immunity defense. … Haley, 687 P.2d 305 at 316 (Alaska 1984), is entitled to qualified immunity unless his action violated a constitutional right that was clearly established at the time.

Lambert v. Town of Stringtown

63 O.B.A.J. 2132 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Jul 14, 1992

They sought summary judgment based on the defense of qualified immunity. The trial court overruled their motion and the defendants appealed. … The qualified immunity doctrine may be stated thus: “[G]overnment officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established

Mary Sallenger, as the Administrator of the Estate of Andrew B. Sallenger, Deceased v. Brian Oakes, James Zimmerman, and Jason Oliver

473 F.3d 731 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jan 10, 2007

If the right was clearly established, the government actor is not entitled to qualified immunity. … If the right was not clearly established, the officers are still entitled to qualified immunity.

Morales v. City of New York

59 F. Supp. 3d 573 · District Court, S.D. New York · Oct 6, 2014

Qualified immunity shields government officials from civil suits for damages “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. … Applying those standards here, there is no question that Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity.

Lodico v. United States

571 F. Supp. 21 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Dec 3, 1982

In Harlow , the Court held that presidential aides are entitled only to a qualified immunity. It then expanded somewhat the scope of the qualified immunity. … Accordingly, these individual defendants are now immune from liability unless their actions violated “clearly established” constitutional rights.

Eaton v. Meneley

180 F. Supp. 2d 1247 · District Court, D. Kansas · Jan 9, 2002

immunity from suit on plaintiffs’ Section 1983 claims because plaintiffs have not alleged facts which establish that he violated any of their clearly established rights. … Fitzgerald, the Supreme Court eliminated the subjective, or intent, element of qualified immunity, and held that a plaintiff could defeat a claim of qualified immunity only by demonstrating that the defendant violated clearly

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.