Case law

Estate of Sinthasomphone v. City of Milwaukee

838 F. Supp. 1320 · District Court, E.D. Wisconsin · Nov 23, 1993

The majority opinion indicated, however, that they were deciding the qualified immunity issue: whether an obligation was “clearly established,” not whether a constitutional obligation existed. … The three police officers in this case are entitled to qualified immunity unless their conduct violated Konerak Sinthasomphone’s clearly established constitutional rights.

Frazier v. Williams

620 F. Supp. 2d 103 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 2, 2009

Callahan, — U.S. -, 129 S.Ct. 808, 815 , 172 L.Ed.2d 565 (2009), the Supreme Court gave the following succinct overview of the qualified immunity doctrine: The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials … Consequently, she is entitled to qualified immunity. B.

Micah Riggs v. Robert Gibbs

923 F.3d 518 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · May 8, 2019

right was clearly established at the time of the violation, such that a reasonable official would have known that his actions were unlawful.” … “Our jurisdiction to consider an appeal of an order denying summary judgment based on qualified immunity is limited to the purely legal issue of whether the facts alleged support a claim of violation of clearly established

Rice v. Burks

796 F. Supp. 319 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · May 28, 1992

The Seventh Circuit, in discussing that court’s jurisdiction over an interlocutory appeal purportedly on qualified immunity grounds, explained qualified immunity as follows: The defense of qualified immunity articulated in … An official who does not violate law “clearly established” at the time, 457 U.S. at 818 , 102 S.Ct. at 2738 , is entitled not only to prevail, but to prevail before trial. Qualified immunity, we know from Mitchell [v.

Abdullah v. Washington

437 F. Supp. 2d 137 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 7, 2006

Qualified Immunity The individual defendants contend that the Eight Amendment claim against them should be dismissed based on qualified immunity. … the violation is established, whether the right was clearly established.

Chappell v. City of Cleveland

584 F. Supp. 2d 974 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Sep 30, 2008

In general, qualified immunity applies when government officials’ conduct in performing discretionary functions “does not violate ‘clearly established’ statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would … The Saucier Test For Qualified Immunity In Saucier v.

Salem v. Michigan Department of Corrections

643 F. App'x 526 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Mar 9, 2016

As for the individual-capacity claims, Defendants invoked qualified immunity, arguing that the strip searches violated no clearly established constitutional rights. … To defeat a claim of qualified immunity, a plaintiff must show: (1) that the defendant violated a constitutional right, and (2) that right was clearly established at the time of the defendant’s actions. Pearson v.

Jeffrey Joseph v. Kurt Schmiedeskamp

Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jul 23, 2025

He must also overcome qualified immunity, which “shields government officials from liability when their conduct does not violate clearly established constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … Schmiedeskamp maintains on appeal that he is entitled to qualified immunity because he didn’t violate Joseph’s clearly established rights.

Julia Correia v. Glenn Jones

943 F.3d 845 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Nov 27, 2019

“Qualified immunity shields officials from civil liability in § 1983 actions when their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … “Qualified immunity analysis requires courts to determine whether (1) the plaintiff has alleged or shown a violation of a constitutional right, and (2) the right was clearly established at the time of the defendants’ alleged

Ram v. Rubin

118 F.3d 1306 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jul 2, 1997

under the doctrine of qualified immunity. … When an official asserts qualified immunity, we apply a two-part analysis: “1) Was the law governing the official’s conduct clearly established?

Trujillo v. Simer

934 F. Supp. 1217 · District Court, D. Colorado · Jul 25, 1996

Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, “government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … The fact that Chief Judge Matsch later ruled the consent was involuntary in the criminal case does not establish that the Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity.

C.A. v. Lowndes County Department of Family & Children Services

93 F. Supp. 2d 744 · District Court, N.D. Mississippi · Mar 13, 2000

The first inquiry in examining a defense of qualified immunity is whether the plaintiff has alleged “the violation of a clearly established constitutional right.” Siegert v. … As such, the Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity because the constitutional right to be free from state-created dangers was not, and is not, clearly established in this jurisdiction.

Anthony Davila v. Robin Gladden

777 F.3d 1198 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jan 9, 2015

Here, we begin and end our qualified immunity analysis with the second question—whether it was clearly established at the time of the incident that the Defendants violated Mr. Davila’s constitutional rights. … Campos does not therefore clearly establish a right under RFRA in the Eleventh Circuit. For those reasons, these Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. So even if Mr.

Samarco v. Neumann

44 F. Supp. 2d 1276 · District Court, S.D. Florida · Mar 4, 1999

The clearly established law prong of the qualified immunity test many not be met through references to general propositions. See Lassiter, 28 F.3d at 1149-50 . … Substantiating Clearly Established Violations of the Fourth Amendment ■ To overcome qualified immunity, Samar-co must show that: (1) Deputy Christensen violated a federal constitutional right; and (2) that the right was clearly

Backlund v. Barnhart

778 F.2d 1386 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Dec 17, 1985

those rights were clearly established at the time of the conduct at issue. … Davis extended the rule of qualified immunity to state officials. 104 S.Ct. at 3020 n. 12.

Nicholas George v. William Rehiel

738 F.3d 562 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Dec 24, 2013

We therefore need not proceed to the second step of the qualified immunity analysis to determine whether that right was clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct. See Scott v. … valid First Amendment claim and that, even if he had, he had not alleged a violation of a clearly established constitutional right and so they were entitled to qualified immunity.

Thad Delaughter v. Ronald Woodall

909 F.3d 130 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Nov 19, 2018

Clearly established law Having established that summary judgment on the first prong was incorrect, we turn to the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis. … Therefore, if the fact issues under prong one were resolved in Delaughter’s favor, Hatten’s conduct would violate clearly established law and he would not be entitled to qualified immunity.

Adams v. Thompson

560 F. Supp. 894 · District Court, M.D. Louisiana · Apr 14, 1983

Qualified immunity now depends on the objective reasonableness of an official’s conduct, as measured by reference to clearly established law, not upon malice or other subjective factors. Harlow v. … Since it is clear that qualified or “good faith” immunity is an affirmative defense, Gomez v.

Deon Johnston v. Deputy Sean M. Carlson

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jul 14, 2025

Qualified immunity protects police officers from liability for civil damages if their conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would … Put another way, “the arguable probable cause inquiry in a false arrest case is no different from the clearly established law inquiry in any other qualified immunity case.

Day v. City of Indianapolis

380 F. Supp. 3d 812 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · May 13, 2019

Qualified immunity shields public officials from civil liability for acts done in their official capacity, insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights to which a reasonable … The law has clearly established this conduct as violative and therefore precludes the officers from qualified immunity.