Case law

James Terry, Jr. v. City of New Orleans

609 F.3d 757 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jun 21, 2010

Jurisdiction and Standard of Review “The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … Based on these principles, the Warden’s conduct did not violate clearly established law.

Ferguson v. Hall

33 F. Supp. 2d 608 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Jan 28, 1999

A government official is not entitled to qualified immunity if his conduct results in the violation of a clearly established statutory or constitutional right of which a reasonable person would have known. … To withstand a motion for summary judgment based on a claim of qualified immunity in the Sixth Circuit, a plaintiff must establish two things.

Megan McGuire v. Cory Cooper

952 F.3d 918 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Mar 6, 2020

“Summary judgment ‘determinations are appealable when they resolve a dispute concerning an abstract issue of law relating to qualified immunity–typically, the issue whether the federal right allegedly infringed was clearly … Qualified immunity is a doctrine that “shields a government official from liability unless his conduct violates ‘clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’”

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

Ross Anthony Smith and Michael Bodak v. Mark Garretto, Individually

147 F.3d 91 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jun 3, 1998

Qualified immunity protects a governmental official from suit for any actions that did not violate a clearly established constitutional right and those actions as to which the official had an objectively reasonable good faith … The first inquiry to be made concerning qualified immunity is whether the plaintiff has “allege[d] the violation of a clearly established constitutional right.” Siegert 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.

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.

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

Muhammed Kenyatta v. Roy K. Moore, James O. Ingram and Thomas Fitzpatrick

744 F.2d 1179 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Oct 29, 1984

In Harlow the Supreme Court simplified the qualified immunity defense, jettisoning the previous requirement of good faith, and announced a simple objective standard; whether a defendant violated “clearly established” law … As we have explained above, the Harlow Court eliminated the subjective prong from analysis of qualified immunity; what remains is the question whether the agents’ actions violated rights clearly established at the time.

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.

Willson v. Cagle

711 F. Supp. 1521 · District Court, N.D. California · Sep 22, 1988

clearly established constitutional rights. … However, the Harlow opinion also clearly states that qualified immunity is available only to "government officials performing discretionary functions." Id.

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.

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

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.

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.

Cox v. Thompson

635 F. Supp. 594 · District Court, S.D. Illinois · May 12, 1986

First plaintiff contends that the qualified immunity doctrine does not apply in this case because the rights asserted by the plaintiff are clearly established constitutional rights. … QUALIFIED IMMUNITY DEFENSE “Government officials performing discretionary functions, as here, are shielded from liability for damages in a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 suit unless their conduct violated clearly established statutory

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

Sunn v. City & County of Honolulu

852 F. Supp. 903 · District Court, D. Hawaii · May 19, 1994

have believed that their conduct did not violate clearly established law. … Qualified immunity requires that in light of clearly established principles governing the conduct in question, the officer objectively could have believed his conduct was lawful. Anderson v.

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