Case law

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.

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.

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

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 .

Mary Zapata v. Manuel Barba

750 F.3d 481 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Apr 18, 2014

established constitutional rights. … “Consequently, this court has established a careful procedure under which a district court may defer its qualified immunity ruling if further factual development is necessary to ascertain the availability of that defense.

Shemtov Michtavi v. William Scism

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Dec 14, 2015

Appellants appeal that order, and we conclude that they are entitled to qualified immunity because a prisoner’s right to treatment of retrograde ejaculation, infertility, or erectile dysfunction is not clearly established … She also concluded that the Defendants were not entitled to qualified immunity because Eighth Amendment jurisprudence clearly establishes that prison officials may not be indifferent to a serious medical need.

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.

Cannavino v. Rock Ohio Caesars Cleveland, L.L.C.

2017 Ohio 380 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Feb 2, 2017

Williams contends that he is shielded from such claims under qualified immunity. … if their conduct does not violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”

Bustillos v. City of Artesia

98 F.4th 1022 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Apr 17, 2024

Officer Bailey counters by asserting qualified immunity. A. Mr. Bustillos must prove the violation of a clearly established right. … Once a defendant asserts qualified immunity, “the plaintiff must establish (1) the defendant violated a statutory or constitutional right and (2) that right was clearly established at the time of the defendant’s

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

Eaton v. Meneley

379 F.3d 949 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Aug 3, 2004

Qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions from liability for civil damages unless their conduct violates clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … Finally, we are able to turn to the central issue in the case against Meneley on qualified immunity, which is whether the plaintiffs’ allegations, as construed in the light most favorable to them, would establish a violation

Veney v. Ojeda

321 F. Supp. 2d 733 · District Court, E.D. Virginia · Jun 15, 2004

The affirmative defense of qualified immunity shields government officials from civil liability for alleged civil rights violations to the extent the officials’ “conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … If no constitutional violation is found, qualified immunity is clearly unnecessary, as plaintiffs underlying constitutional claim simply fails.

Fernandors v. District of Columbia

382 F. Supp. 2d 63 · District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 15, 2005

Stressing the threshold nature of the qualified immunity inquiry, the Court observed as follows: A necessary concomitant to the determination of whether the constitutional right asserted by a plaintiff is “clearly established … Therefore, the only question for the Court is whether Officer Fenton’s alleged conduct violated plaintiffs clearly established constitutional rights so that he would not have 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.

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.

Bonny Edward Taylor v. Henry P. Hughes

920 F.3d 729 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Apr 3, 2019

Constitutional claims and qualified immunity Qualified immunity shields “government officials ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … There are two parts to the qualified-immunity analysis: (1) the relevant facts must set forth a violation of a constitutional right, and (2) the defendant must have violated a constitutional right that was clearly established

Parkulo v. West Virginia Board of Probation & Parole

199 W. Va. 161 · West Virginia Supreme Court · Feb 11, 1997

for official acts if the involved conduct did not violate clearly established laws of which a reasonable official would have known. … acts if the involved conduct did not violate clearly established laws of which a reasonable official would have known.

Moore v. Indehar

514 F.3d 756 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Feb 1, 2008

However, under the doctrine of qualified immunity, a police officer is entitled to dismissal of such an action if his “conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … before a court can determine whether it was clearly established.”

In re Covid-Related Restrictions on Religious Services

Supreme Court of Delaware · Aug 1, 2024

Section 1983 and Qualified Immunity. … A plaintiff’s burden under qualified immunity does not end when a constitutional violation is pinpointed; it rests on whether the official should have known that their actions violated a clearly established constitutional

Anthony Wayne Hardigree v. Marc Lofton

992 F.3d 1216 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Apr 6, 2021

Immunity is appropriate so long as “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … Once an official asserting qualified immunity establishes that he was acting within his discretionary authority—which is not in question here—the burden shifts to the plaintiff to show that qualified immunity is improper