Case 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.

Harris v. Hammon

914 F. Supp. 2d 1026 · District Court, D. Minnesota · Dec 19, 2012

Qualified immunity shields government officials from liability if “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. … right was clearly established at the time of the alleged misconduct.

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 .

Anthony Brown v. Rodney Strain, Jr.

663 F.3d 245 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Nov 18, 2011

Qualified Immunity “The doctrine of qualified immunity protects public officials from liability for civil damages ‘insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of … was ‘clearly established’ at the time of the defendant’s alleged misconduct.”

Elliott v. Linnell

561 F. Supp. 2d 714 · District Court, E.D. Texas · Aug 17, 2007

“The qualified immunity analysis is a two-step inquiry.” Id. “First, a court must decide whether a plaintiffs allegation, if true, establishes a violation of a clearly established right.” Id. (citation omitted). … “Even if the government official’s conduct violates a clearly established right, the official is nonetheless entitled to qualified immunity if his conduct was objectively reasonable.” Id. (citation omitted).

Brown v. City of Golden Valley

574 F.3d 491 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jul 22, 2009

Qualified immunity shields government officials from liability in a § 1983 action unless the official’s conduct violates a clearly established constitutional or statutory right of which a reasonable person would have known … Our second inquiry in considering the denial of qualified immunity is whether the right violated was clearly established. Whether the facts alleged support such a claim is a legal question for the court to decide.

Whitfield v. City of Philadelphia

587 F. Supp. 2d 657 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 19, 2008

Second, if the answer is yes, the court must then determine “ ‘whether the right was clearly established.’ ” Id. … In considering the second prong of the Saucier test, the Third Circuit clarified that “[a] right is clearly established for the purposes of qualified immunity when its contours are ‘sufficiently clear that a reasonable official

Douglas M. Jones v. Richard A. Heyman

888 F.2d 1328 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Nov 22, 1989

The mayor also asserted that his decision to remove Jones was protected by the qualified immunity doctrine because the mayor did not violate Jones’ clearly established First Amendment rights. … Second, he contends he is entitled to qualified immunity for his discretionary decision to remove Jones from the meeting.

Richard Pike v. J. Hester

891 F.3d 1131 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jun 6, 2018

Clearly Established Law The conclusion that Hester violated Pike’s constitutional rights does not end our qualified immunity inquiry. We must also ask whether Hester’s conduct violated clearly established law. … If the right was not clearly established, Hester is entitled to qualified immunity.

Milward v. Shaheen

148 F. Supp. 3d 1341 · District Court, M.D. Florida · Oct 29, 2015

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity protects municipal officers from liability in § 1983 actions as long as their conduct does- not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 , 129 S.Ct. 808 , 172 L.Ed.2d 565 (2009)); A right may be clearly established for the purposes of qualified immunity in one of three ways: “1) case law with indistinguishable facts clearly establishing

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.

Schaffrath on Behalf of RJJ v. Thomas

993 F. Supp. 842 · District Court, D. Utah · Jan 28, 1998

clearly established at the time of the conduct *847 at issue. … “Ordinarily, in order for the law to be clearly established, there must be a Supreme Court or Tenth Circuit decision on point, or the clearly established weight of authority from other courts must have found' the law to be

Beauregard v. Olson

84 F.3d 1402 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jun 12, 1996

Pelletier, --- U.S. ----, ---- 116 S.Ct. 834, 842, 133 L.Ed.2d 773 (1996), to decide the core qualified immunity question of whether it was clearly established before Olson acted that he could not lawfully fire these … This case is not the exceptional case where the individual defendant is unentitled to qualified immunity: it was not clearly established at the time Olson acted that firing Plaintiffs was unlawful.

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.

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.

Paul Frederick Lenea, Cross-Appellant v. Michael P. Lane, Cross-Appellees

882 F.2d 1171 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Aug 11, 1989

clearly established in 1983. … that right was “clearly established” by 1983.

Ralph and Sharon Hughes v. City of North Olmsted

93 F.3d 238 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 20, 1996

The individual defendants respond that they are all entitled to summary judgment based on qualified immunity because they did not violate a clearly established constitutional right. … In the present case, the defendants should have been granted qualified immunity because there is no evidence that the investigation violated a clearly established constitutional right.

Stevenson v. Owens State Community College

562 F. Supp. 2d 965 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Jun 25, 2008

The key inquiry in analyzing a claim of qualified immunity is whether the defendant’s alleged conduct violated clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. … As such, this Court finds that the Individual Defendants are protected by qualified immunity. IV.

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.