Case law

Padgett v. Wright

587 F.3d 983 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Nov 20, 2009

The reasoning behind this departure from the general rule is that qualified immunity is “an immunity from suit rather than a mere defense to liability; ... it is effectively lost if a case is erroneously permitted to go to … at issue was ‘clearly established’ at the time of defendant’s alleged misconduct.”

Griffin, Jr. v. Garrison

2011 DNH 008 · District Court, D. New Hampshire · Jan 13, 2011

Garrison is Entitled to Qualified Immunity. … A government official is entitled to qualified immunity from personal liability if the challenged “‘conduct [did] not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have

Harold Fish v. Tim Brown

838 F.3d 1153 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Oct 3, 2016

government official; so, qualified immunity applies. … Sauls, 206 F.3d 1156, 1165 (11th Cir. 2000) (“[A] police officer is entitled to qualified immunity if a reasonable police officer could have believed his or her actions were lawful in light of clearly established law and

Michael Thomas Wilson v. Barry A. Kittoe, and Anthony S. Tokach

337 F.3d 392 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Jul 22, 2003

Under the second prong of our qualified immunity analysis, we must determine whether the right alleged to have been violated was a “clearly established ... right[ ] of which a reasonable person would have known.” … For the foregoing reasons, Wilson has alleged the violation of a clearly established Fourth Amendment right. Accordingly, the district court’s denial of qualified immunity is affirmed. AFFIRMED 1 .

Robinson v. Bell

767 P.2d 177 · Wyoming Supreme Court · Jan 13, 1989

Immunity from suit is obviously an intended incentive for employers to qualify under the Act. … The relationship between Genuine Parts Company and NAPA is not clearly established in the record. .

TEICHBERG v. Smith

734 F. Supp. 2d 744 · District Court, D. Minnesota · Aug 17, 2010

“Qualified immunity protects a government official from liability in a section 1983 action unless the official’s conduct violated a clearly established constitutional or statutory right of which a reasonable person would … Even if the seizure of the backpack was unreasonable, Defendants are nonetheless entitled to qualified immunity if the constitutional violation was not clearly established at the time of the alleged violation.

Phoenix v. Reddish

175 F. Supp. 2d 215 · District Court, D. Connecticut · Apr 19, 2001

Clearly Established Duty Phoenix argues in opposition to Carr’s claim of qualified immunity that he had a duty to intervene to prevent the police officers from violating her fourth amendment rights and that he violated that … Because Carr did not have a clearly established constitutional duty to intervene, he is entitled to qualified immunity.

Getlin v. Zoll

707 F. Supp. 2d 369 · District Court, E.D. New York · Apr 20, 2010

Qualified Immunity “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 … “Police officers generally enjoy a qualified immunity from liability for their discretionary actions if their conduct does not ‘violate clearly established rights of which a reasonable person would have known,’ or if it is

John Young v. Mercer County Commission

849 F.3d 728 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Feb 27, 2017

“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 … “[C]ourts may grant qualified immunity on the ground that a purported right was not ‘clearly established’ by prior case law, without resolving the often more difficult question whether the purported right exists at all.”

Schmelz v. Monroe County

954 F.2d 1540 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Feb 19, 1992

Good faith qualified immunity is a doctrine that protects government employees from suit for actions that “ ‘legitimately require action in which clearly established rights are not implicated’ ” and the public interest would … Once qualified immunity is asserted by the defendants, the plaintiff must show that the law was clearly established that the defendants’ acts rose to the level of “deliberate indifference.” Edwards, 867 F.2d at 1275 .

Roybal-Mack v. N.M. Dep't of Pub. Safety

286 F. Supp. 3d 1226 · District Court, D. New Mexico · Dec 12, 2017

If the plaintiff fails to establish either part of the two-part inquiry, the court must grant the defendants qualified immunity. Id. … Whether Law Was Clearly Established The Court need not address whether the law clearly established as the second part of the qualified immunity analysis, having found that Defendants did not violate Plaintiff's constitutional

Borgman v. Kedley

646 F.3d 518 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jul 19, 2011

Qualified immunity protects police officers from civil liability for any action that does not violate "clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known." Young v. … When determining whether a state official is entitled to qualified immunity, we decide whether the alleged facts demonstrate that his conduct violated a constitutional right and whether that right was clearly established

Joseph v. Kimple

343 F. Supp. 2d 1196 · District Court, S.D. Georgia · May 10, 2004

Joseph therefore can pierce Kimple’s qualified immunity defense by showing that the law was clearly established yet Kimple violated it. … As of 10/8/99 (the day Kimple swore the warrant out), it was clearly established law that a police officer would not be protected by qualified immunity if he applied for an arrest warrant where “a reasonably well-trained

Latetia Nunley v. Blayne Newton

117 F.4th 1059 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Sep 25, 2024

at issue was clearly established at the time of defendant’s alleged misconduct.” … “[T]o determine whether [Newton] violated clearly established law, we need to know what happened.

Soto v. Coughlin

666 F. Supp. 634 · District Court, S.D. New York · Aug 20, 1987

The defendants claim that they are entitled to qualified immunity from suit for the conduct alleged in the complaint on the ground that the alleged conduct did not, at the time it occurred, violate clearly established law … Qualified immunity from liability is available to executive officials in their personal capacity only if the conduct at issue was not a clearly established violation of law at the time the conduct occurred, and only with

Olufemi Anthony Lukan v. North Forest Isd, Gloria S. Scott, L v. Brisco

183 F.3d 342 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Sep 27, 1999

First, if the official’s conduct did not violate a clearly established constitutional right, the official is entitled to qualified immunity. See Jones v. Collins, 132 F.3d 1048, 1052 (5th Cir.1998). … Second, even if the official’s conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right, the official is nonetheless entitled to qualified immunity if his conduct was objectively reasonable. See id.

Conkey v. Reno

885 F. Supp. 1389 · District Court, D. Nevada · May 4, 1995

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity protects government officials from civil liability for actions taken in the performance of discretionary functions when their actions do not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … Conkey of property without due process of law on the basis of qualified immunity. The complaint alleges the violation of a clearly established constitutional right.

In Re Barbara H. Allen, Better Government Bureau, Incorporated, an Ohio Corporation v. Darrell v. McGraw Jr., Attorney General, State of West Virginia, Personally and in His Official Capacity Better Government Bureau Office of the Attorney General State of West Virginia, a Body Politic, a Corporate Instrumentality of Government With Limited Agency and Quasi-Sovereign Capacity Ken Hechler, Secretary of State, in His Official Capacity v. Donna Willis, Party in Interest. Better Government Bureau, Incorporated, an Ohio Corporation v. Darrell v. McGraw Jr., Attorney General, State of West Virginia, Personally and in His Official Capacity, Better Government Bureau Office of the Attorney General State of West Virginia, a Body Politic, a Corporate Instrumentality of Government With Limited Agency and Quasi-Sovereign Capacity Ken Hechler, Secretary of State, in His Official Capacity v. Barbara H. Allen Donna Willis, Parties in Interest. Better Government Bureau, Incorporated, an Ohio Corporation v. Darrell v. McGraw Jr., Attorney General, State of West Virginia, Personally and in His Official Capacity, Better Government Bureau Office of the Attorney General State of West Virginia, a Body Politic, a Corporate Instrumentality of Government With Limited Agency and Quasi-Sovereign Capacity Ken Hechler, Secretary of State, in His Official Capacity v. Barbara H. Allen Donna Willis, Parties in Interest

106 F.3d 582 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Feb 6, 1997

51 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."

Petro Rentals, Inc. et al. v. The City of Auburn, New York, et al.

District Court, N.D. New York · Mar 13, 2026

Related to § 1983’s “personal involvement” requirement is the affirma- tive defense of qualified immunity, which shields individual defendants from liability for damages “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly … Katz, 533 U.S. 194 (2001), to defeat qualified immunity a plaintiff show that (1) the official violated a statutory or constitutional right; (2) that was “clearly established” at the time of the challenged conduct.

William Sullivan v. City of Round Rock, Tex

837 F.3d 513 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Sep 14, 2016

First, it “decides that a certain course of conduct would, as a matter of law, be objectively un- reasonable in light of clearly established law. … Qualified immunity provides government officials with immunity from suit—not merely a defense to liability for civil damages—“insofar as their con- duct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights