Case law

Torres Ocasio v. Melendez

283 F. Supp. 2d 505 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Sep 16, 2003

Furthermore, Defendants also assert their entitlement to qualified immunity. Qualified immunity constitutes a right not to stand trial or face the burdens of litigation. See Saucier v. … The procedures regarding qualified immunity allow for judicial review, via certiorari, on the qualified immunity issue. Id. at 207, 121 S.Ct. 2151 .

Rivas v. Freeman

940 F.2d 1491 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Sep 9, 1991

In Harlow , the Supreme Court further stated that if the law regarding an individual’s constitutional or statutory rights is clearly established, the qualified immunity defense ordinarily should fail. … The district court denied the deputies’ claim to qualified immunity noting that their combined conduct violated Rivas’s clearly established constitutional rights.

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

Cantrell v. Morris

849 N.E.2d 488 · Indiana Supreme Court · Jun 21, 2006

Kellogg also quoted the standard for qualified immunity as stated by the U.S. … Supreme Court: Whether an official may prevail in his qualified immunity defense depends upon the “objective reasonableness of his conduct as measured by reference to clearly established law.”

Bowling v. Rector

584 F.3d 956 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Oct 26, 2009

clearly established law.” … “Summary judgment based on qualified immunity is appropriate if the law did not put the officer on notice that his conduct would be clearly unlawful.” Id.

Clement v. Gomez

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

Resolving the issue of qualified immunity involves a two-step inquiry. … Clearly Established Law 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 *906 incident.

Schiff v. Kerrigan

625 F. Supp. 704 · District Court, D. Connecticut · Jan 2, 1986

The term "qualified immunity" has often been used interchangeably with the term “good faith immunity." … The defendants must therefore be immune if their exercise of this discretion did not violate plaintiff’s clearly established constitutional rights. 10 .

Charles D. Cronen v. Texas Department of Human Services, Jean Roberts, Ann Valdez-Haines, Donna L. Burns, Socorro Alonzo, and the State of Texas

977 F.2d 934 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Nov 23, 1992

granted qualified immunity from damage suits. … If defendants refused to follow well-established federal regulations, they would violate clearly established rights.

Anderson v. Snyder

389 F. Supp. 3d 1082 · District Court, S.D. Florida · Mar 20, 2019

"Qualified immunity offers complete protection for government officials sued in their individual capacities as long as their conduct violates no clearly *1095 established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … There are two ways to determine if a right is clearly established. First, a constitutional right may be clearly established if there is an existing decision by the U.S.

West Virginia Lottery v. A-1 Amusement, Inc.

807 S.E.2d 760 · West Virginia Supreme Court · Nov 13, 2017

Therefore, even if the State purchases a policy of insurance, a state agency and its official may claim immunities under the common law, such as qualified immunity. 70 Pursuant to this analysis, qualified immunity is available … qualified immunity in this context.

Harris v. Morales

231 F. App'x 773 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Feb 2, 2007

right and (2) that the right was clearly established at the time of the defendant’s unlawful conduct.” … The district court did not fully consider qualified immunity; it did not address whether the applicable constitutional right was “clearly established” at the time of Captain Gore’s actions.

Larry Richardson v. Nathan Falk

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 6, 2026

clearly established. … Because Falk did not violate a clearly established constitutional right, he is entitled to qualified immunity. III.

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.

Tidik v. Ritsema

938 F. Supp. 416 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Jul 12, 1996

Their duties clearly qualify as adjudicative or prosecutorial. … To overcome a claim of qualified immunity under section 1983, the plaintiff must show a violation of a constitutionally protected right, and that the protected right is so clearly established that “a reasonable official would

Rovira Rivera v. Puerto Rico Electric Power Authority

364 F. Supp. 2d 154 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Apr 5, 2005

Qualified Immunity Defendants’ last argument is that their conduct is protected by the doctrine of qualified immunity because it was reasonable and did not violate clearly established law. … The general rule regarding qualified immunity is that government officials are immune from suit and liability when their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory authority or constitutional rights, which a reasonable

Melody Cooper v. Officer James Doyle

Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Dec 30, 2025

a right was not clearly established.” … Nevertheless, “[a] right need not be recognized by a court in a specific factual context before such right may be considered ‘clearly established’ for purposes of qualified immunity.” See Wilson v.

Pena v. Deprisco

432 F.3d 98 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Dec 9, 2005

Qualified Immunity: Was the Constitutional Right Clearly Established? … Although it is a close question, we think that the substantive due process violation that the plaintiffs allege here was not clearly established for purposes of qualified immunity.

Miguel A. Figueroa-Rodriguez v. Jorge L. Aquino, Etc.

863 F.2d 1037 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Dec 9, 1988

See DeAbadia, 792 F.2d at 1193 (“the very fact that there is a reasonable dispute means that, from the standpoint of qualified immunity, the law was not clearly established in plaintiff’s favor”). … Given this focus, Aquino was entitled to qualified immunity because it was not clearly established in January 1985 that political affiliation was not an appropriate requirement for the effective performance of the job of

Casteel v. Pieschek

3 F.3d 1050 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Aug 23, 1993

Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, “public officials performing discretionary functions are protected against suits from damages unless their' conduct violates clearly established statutory or constitutional rights … To determine the applicability of qualified immunity, the defendants’ actions must be compared to what a reasonable official would believe was required in light of the clearly established legal rules regarding county jail

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.