Case law

DeNieva v. Reyes

966 F.2d 480 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jun 5, 1992

Thus, as we stated in Romero , [t]he qualified immunity test necessitates three inquiries: (1) the identification of the specific right allegedly violated; (2) the determination of whether that right was so ‘clearly established … Did DeNieva Identify a Specific Right, and Was it Clearly Established? We can consider the first two prongs of the Romero test together, as both raise the question of Reyes’ violation of a clearly established right.

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.

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.

Albert Hansen v. Ryan Aper

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 21, 2018

App’x 479, 484 (6th Cir. 2015) (reviewing a denial of qualified immunity to determine whether a prisoner’s constitutional right was clearly established). … Indisputably, the right to be free from “excessively forceful handcuffing” is clearly established for qualified immunity purposes. Kostrzewa v. City of Troy, 247 F.3d 633, 641 (6th Cir. 2001); see also O’Malley v.

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.

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.

McGory v. Metcalf

665 So. 2d 254 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Nov 3, 1995

The next inquiry is whether the law allegedly violated was clearly established at the time of *259 the incident. … If the law was clearly established, the immunity defense ordinarily should fail, since a reasonably competent public official should know the law governing his conduct. Harlow v.

Roberts v. Lipson

231 Ga. 142 · Supreme Court of Georgia · Sep 6, 1973

from taxation or regulation should not be interpreted as including that immunity.” … It is well established in this state that exemptions from taxation must be strictly construed, "and the exemption will not be held to be conferred unless the terms under which it is granted clearly and distinctly show that

Roden v. Wright

646 So. 2d 605 · Supreme Court of Alabama · Aug 19, 1994

This burden is met by proof demonstrating that the defendant public official's actions 'violated clearly established constitutional law.' Zeigler [v. Jackson ], 716 F.2d [847] at 849 [11th Cir. 1983]. Accord, I.A. … Thus, in stating that "[i]t does not violate any clearly established constitutional principle for a politician . . . to write a letter to Gold Kist, Inc. encouraging the latter not to enter into an arrangement to place chicken

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.

Patrick Stockdale v. Kim Helper

979 F.3d 498 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Oct 30, 2020

But because her conduct did not violate any clearly established law, qualified immunity protects her. We affirm in part and reverse in part. I. … Qualified Immunity. That leaves Helper’s qualified immunity defense against Stockdale and Dunning’s § 1983 claim.

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

Deezia v. City of Lincoln

350 F. Supp. 3d 868 · District Court, D. Nebraska · Oct 29, 2018

. ----, 136 S.Ct. 305 , 308, 193 L.Ed.2d 255 (2015) (specificity in defining clearly established law for qualified immunity purposes "is especially important in the Fourth Amendment context, where the Court has recognized … For qualified immunity purposes, the question then becomes whether the law at the time of the incident clearly established that the level of force used in this context constituted excessive force. Ehlers v.

Tomashek v. Raleigh Cnty. Emergency Operating Ctr.

344 F. Supp. 3d 869 · United States District Court · Sep 26, 2018

Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, "[g]overnmental officials performing discretionary functions are shielded from liability for money damages so long 'as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … As such, the plaintiff has failed to demonstrate the violation of a constitutional right, and Meadows and Johnson are entitled to qualified immunity. The court need not address whether the right was clearly established.

Youngbear v. Thalacker

174 F. Supp. 2d 902 · District Court, N.D. Iowa · Nov 8, 2001

Qualified Immunity 1. … The qualified immunity defense should fail if the official violates a clearly established right, because “a reasonably competent public official should know the law governing his conduct.”

Chico Scrap Metal, Inc. v. Raphael

830 F. Supp. 2d 966 · District Court, E.D. California · Nov 23, 2011

The 11th Amendment does not bar this claim. c) Qualified Immunity Defendants finally argue that they are immune from suit in this instance because of qualified immunity. … The doctrine of qualified immunity shields public officials sued in their individual capacity from monetary damages, unless their conduct violates “clearly established” law that would be known to a reasonable public officer

Levi Wilson v. Scott Lamp

901 F.3d 981 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Aug 28, 2018

They agree that this court may review the denial of qualified immunity if the issue “is a purely legal one: whether the facts alleged . . . support a claim of violation of clearly established law.” See Pace v. … Government actors have qualified immunity as a shield against litigation if their actions do not “violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v.

Cantrell v. Morris

849 N.E.2d 488 · Indiana Supreme Court · Jun 21, 2006

Kellogg also quoted the standard for qualified immunity as stated by the U.S. … Supreme Court: Whether an official may prevail in his qualified immunity defense depends upon the “objective reasonableness of his conduct as measured by reference to clearly established law.”

Susan King v. Todd Harwood

852 F.3d 568 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Mar 27, 2017

to qualified immunity. . . . … , because Defendants would lose qualified immunity only if they “recklessly or knowingly” violated King’s clearly established right to be free from malicious prosecution.

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