Case law

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

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.”

Geraldine Livermore, Personal Representative for the Estate of Roland E. Rohm, Deceased v. Daniel Lubelan and Jerry Ellsworth

476 F.3d 397 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Feb 7, 2007

by the plaintiff constitute a violation of clearly established law.”). … To defeat qualified immunity, the plaintiff *404 must show that the defendant had notice that the manner in which the force was used had been previously proscribed: [T]here is no doubt that [precedent] clearly establishes

Jack McLaurin v. Keith Morton and Roger Marriott

48 F.3d 944 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Mar 3, 1995

qualified immunity question ... … [defendant] actually did commit acts that would violate -a clearly established right, then summary judgment on qualified immunity is improper.” Black, 4 F.3d at 445 .

COWAN v. SCHARFENBERG

District Court, D. New Jersey · Aug 4, 2025

Div. 2024). 20 Defendants argue that qualified immunity also bars Plaintiffs’ malicious prosecution claim. … Evanson, 615 F.3d 197, 223 (3d Cir. 2010) (stating that the defendant bears “[t]he burden of establishing entitlement to qualified immunity”). 28 future event . . .

Eric Wenzel v. Carl Storm

899 F.3d 598 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Aug 9, 2018

Qualified immunity shields a law enforcement officer from liability in a § 1983 action unless the officer’s conduct violates a clearly established constitutional or statutory right of which a reasonable person would have … An officer is entitled to qualified immunity “unless (1) the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, establishes a violation of a constitutional or statutory right, and (2) the right was clearly established

Joseph Jones v. City of Jackson, Malcolm McMillin and Les Tannehill

203 F.3d 875 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Mar 20, 2000

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY The first inquiry in examining a defense of qualified immunity asserted in a motion for summary judgment is whether the plaintiff has alleged “the violation of a clearly established constitutional right … of the clearly established legal rules.

Tasha Williamson v. City of National City

23 F.4th 1146 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jan 24, 2022

Qualified immunity shields a police officer from liability for civil damages under Section 1983 “unless the officer[] violated a clearly established constitutional right.” Monzon v. … Thus, the qualified-immunity analysis involves two prongs: (1) whether the officer’s conduct violated a constitutional right, and (2) whether that right “was clearly established at the time of the events at issue.” Id.

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.

Andrade v. Board of County Commissioners

Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · May 3, 2021

Where, as here, the defendants have asserted a qualified-immunity defense, the plaintiffs must show “(1) that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was clearly established at … to qualified immunity.”

Greene v. Cabral

323 F. Supp. 3d 96 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 15, 2018

"An official sued under § 1983 is entitled to qualified immunity unless it is shown that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right that was 'clearly established' at the time of the challenged conduct." … For a right to have been clearly established, such that qualified immunity does not shield an official from liability, "the right's contours [must have been] sufficiently definite that any reasonable official *107 in the

Jonathan Turmon v. Charles Jordan, Individually, and Red Roof Inns, Incorporated

405 F.3d 202 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Apr 25, 2005

The doctrine of qualified immunity shields law enforcement officers performing discretionary duties “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … Because Jordan violated Turmoris Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable seizures and because that right was clearly established on March 10, 2001, Jordan is not entitled to qualified immunity on the illegal seizure

Cardenas-Ornelas v. Johnson

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jan 29, 2026

JOHNSON 3 meaningful opportunities for recreation was clearly established. … Qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions “from liability for civil damages” when “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a

Connie Reguli v. Tracy Hetzel

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 16, 2026

For qualified immunity, we ask whether the defendant violated clearly established law. See Wesby, 583 U.S. at 63. … Page 14 Hetzel receive qualified immunity because their conduct didn’t violate clearly established law. See Wesby, 583 U.S. at 63.

Nurre v. Whitehead

520 F. Supp. 2d 1222 · District Court, W.D. Washington · Sep 20, 2007

Whitehead to qualified immunity as an individual defendant, for the record, the Court also grants defendant’s motion for summary judgment on qualified immunity for the separate reason that it was not clearly established that … Similarly, the Court concludes that defendant is entitled to qualified immunity on plaintiffs Establishment Clause claim because the Court has been unable to find authority clearly establishing that defendant was acting with

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

In re: Allen v.

Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Apr 2, 1997

We hold, therefore, that an official who performs an act clearly established to be beyond the scope of his discretionary authority is not entitled to claim qualified immunity under § 1983. … established for qualified immunity purposes."

Williamson v. Mills

65 F.3d 155 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Sep 27, 1995

An official sued as an individual is entitled to qualified immunity, and therefore summary judgment, if his conduct "does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … Qualified immunity shields Mills against a claim of arrest without probable cause if a "reasonable officer could have believed [the arrest] to be lawful, in light of clearly established law and the information the [arresting

Boyd v. Robeson County

169 N.C. App. 460 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Apr 5, 2005

Qualified Immunity The detention officers next argue that summary judgment should have been granted on the § 1983 claims based on qualified immunity. 4 *479 The United States Supreme Court has held that “[t]he threshold inquiry … a court must undertake in a qualified immunity analysis is whether plaintiffs allegations, if true, establish a constitutional violation.”

Joseph D. Leeks v. Lowell K. Cunningham, Mr. Carson P. Bass Joseph A. Kemper M. Press

997 F.2d 1330 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · May 18, 1993

The Tenth Circuit affirmed the-denial of qualified immunity, finding that as of 1980 it was “unequivocal” that the law as to the forced medication of a pretrial detainee was clearly established. Id. at 688 . … Thus, in assessing appellant’s qualified immunity claim, our concern is whether statutory or case law existed in July 1989 to clearly establish that a county jail pretrial detainee had a right under the Due Process Clause