Case law

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.”

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

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.

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.

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

Heidemann v. Rother

84 F.3d 1021 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jul 1, 1996

For reversal, all of the defendants, including Joy, argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity as a matter of law because plaintiffs have failed to allege a violation of any clearly established constitutional or federal … In Behrens, the defendant, an official with the Federal Home Loan Bank Board, had moved for summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds, arguing that his actions had not violated any clearly established right.

Caron v. Hester, et al.

2001 DNH 206 · District Court, D. New Hampshire · Nov 13, 2001

Qualified Immunity. … To qualify as a clearly established right, “the law must have defined the right in a quite specific manner, and . . . the announcement of the rule establishing the right must have been unambiguous and widespread, such

Fidelity Security Life Insurance v. State

191 Ariz. 222 · Arizona Supreme Court · Feb 19, 1998

That section provides in relevant part: Qualified Immunity A. … were dismissed on the pleadings under the doctrine of absolute immunity, we do not reach the question of qualified immunity.

Ex Parte Kelley

739 So. 2d 1095 · Supreme Court of Alabama · Jun 25, 1999

This Court has addressed the question presented here on other occasions, and it has recently held in Ex parte Davis, supra, that acts by a State employee may be immune from a lawsuit, on the basis of qualified immunity, if … However, acts by a State employee that are merely ministerial in nature are not protected by qualified immunity. See Defoor v.

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.

Merchant v. Fairfax County, Va.

778 F. Supp. 2d 636 · District Court, E.D. Virginia · Apr 11, 2011

Yet, this does not end the qualified immunity analysis. The second step of the inquiry requires determining whether the constitutional right violated was “clearly established” in the specific context presented here. … Merchant — -was clearly established. Therefore, Officer Bauer is not entitled to summary judgment based on qualified immunity. 14 *650 B.

Velasquez v. Audirsch

574 F. App'x 476 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jul 3, 2014

Qualified immunity protects governmental officials from liability so long as their conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … In this context, “qualified immunity turns ... on whether it was then ‘clearly established that the circumstances with which’ the officer ‘was confronted did not constitute probable cause and exigent circumstances.’ ” Pierce

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."

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.”