Case law

Clement v. Gomez

298 F.3d 898 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Aug 6, 2002

"If the law did not put the [officials] on notice that [their] conduct would be clearly unlawful, summary judgment based on qualified immunity is appropriate." Saucier, 533 U.S. at 202, 121 S.Ct. 2151 . I. … Clearly Established Law 23 The qualified immunity analysis requires us to further consider whether the rights of the prisoners in this case were clearly established at the time of incident.

Stodghill v. Wellston School District

512 F.3d 472 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jan 9, 2008

The SAB members moved to dismiss the claim on the basis of qualified immunity. … The SAB members sought qualified immunity.

Diamond v. Owens

131 F. Supp. 3d 1346 · District Court, M.D. Georgia · Sep 14, 2015

Whether the Constitutional Right was Clearly Established Lewis is not entitled to qualified immunity if clearly established law gave her fair warning her conduct violated Diamond’s Eighth Amendment right to be protected from … Whether the Constitutional Right was Clearly Established Lewis is not entitled to qualified immunity if clearly established law gave her fair warning her failure to train subordinates was unlawful.

Bobby Williams v. Robert B. Greifinger, Deputy Commissioner and Chief Medical Officer of the New York State Department of Correctional Services

97 F.3d 699 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Oct 15, 1996

Under the law of qualified immunity, govern- • ment officials may only be sued for violations of “clearly established” rules of federal law. Harlow v. … Summary judgment on the basis of a claim of qualified immunity is thus appropriate only if the court finds that the asserted rights were not clearly established, or if the evidence is such that, even when it is viewed in

Wilson v. Zellner

200 F. Supp. 2d 1356 · District Court, M.D. Florida · Mar 26, 2002

immunity because Plaintiff has failed to establish that the alleged constitutional right was clearly established at the time of Zellner’s actions. … Under this prong of the qualified immunity analysis the issue is whether it was clearly established at the time of Defendant Zellner’s actions that it was unlawful for a prison official to detain a prisoner for a period of

Leisure v. City of Cincinnati

267 F. Supp. 2d 848 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · May 6, 2003

Qualified Immunity for Defendant Roach Qualified immunity is a doctrine that protects “government officials acting in their official capacities from damages if their actions did not violate clearly established statutory or … The second step in qualified immunity analysis is to ask whether the alleged constitutional violations were clearly established at the time of the shooting of Timothy Thomas.

J.M.M. v. Hernandez

151 F. Supp. 3d 1125 · District Court, D. Nevada · Dec 7, 2015

Qualified Immunity under Section 1983 Qualified immunity-shields state actors from monetary liability under *1132 § 1983 unless (1) the facts alleged by the plaintiff establish a violation of the plaintiffs constitutional … rights and (2) the constitutional right in question was “clearly established” when the alleged misconduct occurred. 49 A state official enjoys qualified immunity if she “reasonably believes that [her] conduct complies with

Calderon v. State of Kansas

24 F. Supp. 2d 1138 · District Court, D. Kansas · May 22, 1998

Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, government officials are shielded from liability if “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have … “In analyzing qualified immunity claims, we first ask if a plaintiff has asserted the violation of a constitutional right at all, and then assess whether the right was clearly established at the time of a defendant’s actions

Kareem Abdul Jihaad A/K/A Mitchell X. Robinson, Jr., Cross v. Joseph O'brien, Cross-Appellee

645 F.2d 556 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 9, 1981

We reverse the judgment of the district court, however, upon our determination that the defendant established his right to qualified good faith immunity. B. … O’Brien enforced a regulation which was valid on its face and offended no “clearly established” constitutional right.

Fittanto v. Klein

788 F. Supp. 1451 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Mar 18, 1992

Because the law in 1984 and 1985 was not clearly established, the court held that the defendants who interviewed the children were entitled to qualified immunity. Id. … Because the law in this area is not clearly established, defendant Klein is entitled to qualified immunity for her conduct. Plaintiffs counter that this case is remarkably like Snell v.

John Doe, a Minor, (Born 01/28/90) by His Next Friend Jane Doe Jane Doe, Individually v. State of Hawaii Department of Education, and David Keala

334 F.3d 906 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jun 30, 2003

ANALYSIS A public official is not entitled to qualified immunity if his conduct violates “ ‘clearly established constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’ ” Koch, 96 F.3d at 1301 (quoting Harlow … If so, the defendant is entitled to qualified immunity only if the constitutional right that he allegedly violated was not clearly established. Id. A.

Turner v. Nelson

342 S.W.3d 866 · Kentucky Supreme Court · Jun 16, 2011

application of “qualified official immunity.” … Qualified Official Immunity from Tort Liability Turner also argues that she is entitled to “qualified official immunity” from suit.

Barber v. Rounds

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Mar 9, 2026

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 rights of which a reasonable person … Second, we must determine “whether the right was clearly established.” Id.

Jarvis v. WEST VIRGINIA STATE POLICE

227 W. Va. 472 · West Virginia Supreme Court · Nov 18, 2010

Postponing review of a ruling denying immunity to the post-trial stage is fruitless ... because the underlying objective in any immunity determination (absolute or qualified) is immunity from suit. … How could any court ever conclude that the general concepts of negligence do not constitute clearly established law?

Norman v. Ingle

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Aug 15, 2025

When a defendant appeals a denial of summary judgment based on qualified immunity, we “have interlocutory jurisdiction to determine whether [the plaintiff’s] summary judgment facts state a claim under clearly established … has the burden of showing that qualified immunity is unavailable because they violated at least one clearly established constitutional right.

Rhodes v. Smithers

939 F. Supp. 1256 · District Court, S.D. West Virginia · Sep 15, 1995

Qualified Immunity. … Qualified Immunity.

Johari v. City of Columbus Police Department

186 F. Supp. 2d 821 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Jan 23, 2002

Where a defendant moves for summary judgment based on qualified immunity, the plaintiff first must “identify a clearly established right alleged to have been violated” and second, “establish that a reasonable officer in the … The burden then shifts “to the plaintiff to establish that the defendant[’]s conduct violated a right so clearly established that any official in the defendant[’]s position [ ] would have clearly understood that [he] w[as

Kenney v. Hawaii

109 F. Supp. 2d 1271 · District Court, D. Hawaii · Jul 31, 2000

To determine whether a defendant is entitled to the defense of qualified immunity, a court must (1) identify the right allegedly violated; (2) determine whether the right was clearly established at the time of the violation … That right is clearly established. See Kelley, 60 F.3d at 667 .

Cardall v. Thompson

845 F. Supp. 2d 1182 · District Court, D. Utah · Jan 11, 2012

After the defendant contends that qualified immunity applies, the plaintiff must prove that the defendant violated his rights, as protected by clearly established law. V-1 Oil Co. v. … Clearly Established Even if the decision to tase Brian was unconstitutional, summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity is still appropriate if the unconstitutionality of the tasing was not “clearly established”

Michael Durham v. David Horner

690 F.3d 183 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Aug 8, 2012

Hence, our qualified immunity defense involves a “two-step” inquiry, asking “first whether a constitutional violation occurred and second whether the right violated was clearly established.” Id. … Having concluded that Durham has no "viable § 1983 claim, we need not determine whether any rights [he] asserted were 'clearly established' for purposes of qualified immunity.” See Lambert v.