Case law

Cross v. Mokwa

547 F.3d 890 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Nov 14, 2008

Qualified immunity protects government officials performing discretionary functions “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have … the plaintiffs clearly established federal rights.”

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.

Miguel Gutierrez v. Michael Kermon

722 F.3d 1003 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jul 12, 2013

Qualified immunity affords an even greater level of protection by shielding officers from “suit for damages if ‘a reasonable officer could have believed [the arrest] to be lawful, in light of clearly established law and the … does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’”

Yarris v. County of Delaware

465 F.3d 129 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Oct 2, 2006

does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … If the court concludes that the defendant’s conduct violated a clearly established constitutional or statutory right, it must deny the defendant the protection afforded by qualified immunity.

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.

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.

Olsen v. Layton Hills Mall

312 F.3d 1304 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Dec 11, 2002

or statutory right was clearly established when the alleged violation occurred. … If so, we must subsequently ask “whether the right was clearly established.” Id. If the plaintiff does not satisfy either portion of the two-pronged test, the Court must grant the defendant qualified immunity. Gross v.

Eugene Burns v. County Of Cambria

971 F.2d 1015 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jul 28, 1992

Finally, in considering the qualified immunity defense of the two Roberts defendants, the court held that they were not entitled to qualified immunity as a matter of law. Id. II. … Clearly Established Standard 44 Roberts argues, however, that it was not clearly established at the time of these dismissals that deputy sheriffs, as distinguished from other public officials, were indeed protected under

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.

Kenneth R. Henderson v. Les Munn, in His Individual Capacity

439 F.3d 497 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Feb 28, 2006

“The question of what was known to a person who might be shielded by qualified immunity is reviewable, to determine if the known facts would inform a reasonable actor that his actions violate an established legal standard … Officer Munn’s Liability on Excessive Force Claim 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

Wayne King v. Charles Beavers

148 F.3d 1031 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jul 9, 1998

Qualified immunity protects government officials from damage liability unless their discretionary acts violated clearly established statutory or constitutional rights. See Harlow v. … We conclude Beavers is entitled to qualified immunity for two distinct reasons. A. No Clearly Established Federal Right.

Ronald Davidson v. Charles J. Scully, Superintendent, and Edward Bollinger, Correction Officer

114 F.3d 12 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · May 22, 1997

Under the law of qualified immunity, government officials may be sued only for violations of “clearly established” rules of federal law. Harlow v. … Summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity is thus appropriate only if: the asserted rights were not clearly established, or if the evidence is such that, even when it is viewed in the light most favorable to the

Texas A&M University Texas A&M University System Dr. Jerry Gaston And Eugene Ray v. Don Thompson

Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin) · Dec 18, 2003

Appellants assert the protection of sovereign immunity, qualified immunity, and quasi-judicial or official immunity against Thompson’s numerous claims. … was objectively unreasonable in light of the clearly established right.

Slay v. Marion County Sheriff's Department

603 N.E.2d 877 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Nov 23, 1992

IV We next address the issue of qualified immunity. … Jones argues that he is entitled to qualified immunity. 6 In particular, he con *887 tends that the rights in question were not "clearly established" when the shooting occurred, in May of 1982. While Tennessee v.

Devereaux v. Perez

218 F.3d 1045 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jul 12, 2000

ANALYSIS Standard of Review A district court’s decision that an asserted federal right was “clearly established” such that qualified immunity in a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action attached at a particular point in time is a question … Bailey, 957 F.2d 920, 931 (1st Cir.1992) (noting that “the dimensions of [the] right [to family integrity] have yet to be clearly established” and applying qualified immunity to suit in which social worker allegedly interfered

Wall-DeSousa v. Florida Department of Highway Safety & Motor Vehicles

691 F. App'x 584 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jun 2, 2017

(“Unless the plaintiffs allegations state a claim of violation of clearly established law, a defendant plead *590 ing qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal before the commencement of discovery.”). III. … This is because, to survive dismissal in this case, the Wall-DeSousas must additionally allege sufficient facts to overcome the second prong of qualified immunity, i.e., clearly established federal law.

Roberto Valderrama v. Officer Carl Rousseau

780 F.3d 1108 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Mar 16, 2015

The district court granted their motions in part, but it denied them qualified immunity as to several of the § 1983 claims. The officers now appeal the denial of qualified immunity as to Mr. … clearly established.

PJ Ex Rel. Jensen v. Wagner

603 F.3d 1182 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · May 5, 2010

The “clearly established” prong of the qualified immunity analysis ensures that governmental actors are given fair warning that their conduct is unconstitutional before they are held liable for damages based on that conduct … ’ claims of qualified immunity. 2.

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.