Case law

Stokes v. Gann

498 F.3d 483 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Aug 29, 2007

“Qualified” or “good faith” immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions from liability “unless their conduct violates ‘clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … objectively unreasonable in the light of the clearly established law at the time of the incident.

Hudson v. Hall

231 F.3d 1289 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Nov 9, 2000

violated clearly established law." … clearly established law.

Hucker v. City of Beaumont

144 F. Supp. 2d 696 · District Court, E.D. Texas · May 18, 2001

When a defendant pleads qualified immunity, the court must first determine whether the plaintiff has alleged a clearly established constitutional right. See Sie-gert v. … Qualified immunity is an affirmative defense requiring the defendant to both plead and establish his entitlement to immunity. See Tamez v.

Alexander v. Newman

345 F. Supp. 2d 876 · District Court, W.D. Tennessee · Nov 22, 2004

Qualified Immunity Defendants argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity as to Plaintiffs Fourth Amendment § 1983 claim. … “Government officials are entitled to qualified immunity for discretionary acts that do ‘not violate clearly established [federal] statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’ ” Goad,

Woodlock v. Orange Ulster B.O.C.E.S.

281 F. App'x 66 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jun 17, 2008

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 … “If the right at issue was not clearly established ... then qualified immunity shields the defendant.” Walczyk v. Rio, 496 F.3d 139, 154 (2d Cir.2007).

Belanger v. Blum

628 F. Supp. 2d 260 · District Court, D. Connecticut · Jun 10, 2009

Qualified immunity protects the state defendants to the extent that the'ir conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. … “Law is not ‘clearly established’ for purposes of qualified immunity by district court opinions, but by the decisions of circuit courts or the Supreme Court.” Cipes, 386 F.Supp.2d at 42 .

Michael O'Connell v. Christopher Thieneman

Court of Appeals of Kentucky · Dec 19, 2025

Thus, in addition to proving each of these elements, O’Connell’s qualified official immunity imposes upon Thieneman the additional burden of showing that the Law Day remarks … Rather, our decision is based solely on the application of qualified immunity. -6- BRIEFS FOR APPELLANT: BRIEF FOR APPELLEE: Joseph Klausing Alan J.

Dean v. Earle

866 F. Supp. 336 · District Court, W.D. Kentucky · Oct 28, 1994

legal rules that were “clearly established” at the time the actions were taken. … Thus, Officer Ward did not violate Dean’s clearly established constitutional rights and is immune from monetary liability under § 1983.

Malik v. Arapahoe County Department of Social Services

191 F.3d 1306 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Sep 14, 1999

support a conclusion that Coleman’s actions were outside the scope of absolute immunity, and that both defendants’ actions violated clearly established law. … clearly established at the time of the defendant’s actions.”

Villages, LLC v. Longhi

166 Conn. App. 685 · Connecticut Appellate Court · Jul 5, 2016

plaintiff filed an objection to the defendant’s motion in which it contended that neither qualified immunity, governmental immunity, nor absolute immunity barred its claims against the defendant given the intentional nature … 52-557n (c), which provides qualified immunity for uncompensated members of munici- pal commissions and boards.

Nicole K. Brinkman v. City of Des Moines, Iowa

Court of Appeals of Iowa · Oct 11, 2023

Further, whether the law was clearly established is inextricably intertwined with the new qualified immunity defense and only relevant to this case to the 3 The court applied only the particularity and plausibility … Id. at 782−84.  7 extent the new qualified immunity defense is operative in this case, and we already have concluded that qualified immunity is not operative

P.G.S. v. S. Hendricks

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 8, 2025

qualified immunity. … With respect to qualified immunity, this Court applies that doctrine to state officers when considering federal law violations and will be found if an official’s conduct does not violate clearly established rights which a

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.

Fletcher v. United States Parole Commission

550 F. Supp. 2d 30 · District Court, District of Columbia · May 6, 2008

In conducting the qualified immunity analysis, the Court assumed that the facts alleged by Fletcher would establish a violation of the Ex Post Facto Clause, and focused its inquiry on whether, under “clearly established” … Finding that the law was not clearly established on this issue at the time his reparole was denied in 2000, the Court held that qualified immunity applied. Id.

Crystal Thompson v. Andrew Dill

930 F.3d 1008 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jul 23, 2019

A government official is entitled to qualified immunity on a § 1983 claim unless (1) "the facts shown by the plaintiff make out a violation of a constitutional or statutory right," and (2) the "right was clearly established … When the denial is based on qualified immunity, however, we have limited jurisdiction to decide the purely legal issue of whether the alleged facts support a claim of violation of clearly established law. See Raines v.

Whitlock v. Brown

596 F.3d 406 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Feb 24, 2010

Brown disputes this and also argues he is entitled to qualified immunity. … were unconstitutional in light of clearly established law?

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.

Mendez-Palou v. Rohena-Betancourt

813 F.2d 1255 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Mar 10, 1987

not “clearly established.” … The district courts in the cases presently before us concluded that defendants were not entitled to qualified immunity because Elrod and Branti clearly established that the first amendment protects government employees from

Gonzalez v. Lee County Housing Authority

161 F.3d 1290 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Dec 2, 1998

(en banc), cert. denied , — - U.S.-, 118 S.Ct. 412 , 139 L.Ed.2d 315 (1997) (explaining that decisions from only these courts clearly establish the law for the purposes of qualified immunity). … immunity, but this entirely discrete question: Is qualified immunity defeated where a defendant violates any clearly established duty, including one under state law, or must the clearly established right be the federal right

Knussman v. State of Maryland

272 F.3d 625 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Nov 7, 2001

Public officials “are protected by qualified immunity when performing their duties within the scope of their employment insofar as their conduct does not breach ‘clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … “Clearly established for purposes of qualified immunity means that the contours of the right must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that right.”