Case law

Williams v. Prince George's County

112 Md. App. 526 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Dec 4, 1996

Because of these considerations, immunity is granted to officers who act reasonably, albeit mistakenly, in light of clearly established law and the information they possessed without the benefit of hindsight. … immunity because their actions were in conformity with “clearly established” legal rules.

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.

Roberson v. Mullins

876 F. Supp. 100 · District Court, W.D. Virginia · Jan 30, 1995

Qualified immunity shields government officials from liability for civil damages when they perform discretionary functions, unless their acts violate clearly established constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … “Faced with such uncertainty, it may be preferable to err on the side of caution and ... find qualified immunity where [the court] cannot confidently state that the right was clearly established or that the officials must

Tubar v. Clift

286 F. App'x 348 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Apr 11, 2008

Qualified immunity protects government officials acting in their official capacities from civil liability unless their conduct violates “clearly established” statutory or constitutional rights of which a “reasonable” official … In Saucier, the Supreme Court imposed a specific, sequential analysis for determining whether qualified immunity is warranted.

James T. Martin, Jr. v. D.C. Metropolitan Police Department, Richard Xander, James T. Martin, Jr. v. D.C. Metropolitan Police Department, Richard Xander

812 F.2d 1425 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · May 8, 1987

(footnotes omitted); Mitchell, 105 S.Ct. at 2816 (defendant entitled to dismissal on qualified immunity plea unless plaintiff states a claim of violation of clearly established law). … Harlow, 457 U.S. at 817-18 , 102 S.Ct. at 2738 . 23 The "clearly established law" and "objective reasonableness" facets of current qualified immunity doctrine tug in opposite directions where, as here, the "clearly established

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.

Bennett v. Murphy

274 F.3d 133 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jan 2, 2002

that claims of qualified immunity are to be evaluated using a two-step process. … immunity claim move to the second step of the analysis to determine whether the constitutional right was clearly established.

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.”

Flint ex rel. Flint v. Kentucky Department of Corrections

270 F.3d 340 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Oct 26, 2001

The affirmative defense of qualified immunity shields “government officials performing discretionary functions ... from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate ‘clearly established’ statutory … violating a clearly established right of Flint’s.

Bombard v. Volp

44 F. Supp. 3d 514 · District Court, D. Vermont · Sep 8, 2014

Qualified Immunity Officer Volp has also moved for summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity. … An assertion of qualified immunity requires a court to determine “(1) whether plaintiff has shown facts making out [a] violation of a constitutional right; (2) if so, whether that right was ‘clearly established’; and (3)

Machelle Pearson v. MDOC

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Mar 26, 2026

It also held that they could seek damages because the complaint alleged a violation of clearly established law to overcome any qualified-immunity defense. See id. at *5–6. … The Inmates also contend that they may rely on the clearly established “right to safe and sanitary conditions” to overcome qualified immunity. Appellees’ Br. 27.

Brett Kohorst v. Thomas Smith

968 F.3d 871 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Aug 6, 2020

Officer Smith’s actions, while a close call, did not violate a clearly established right and the district court did not err in granting qualified immunity. B. … Because a jury could reasonably conclude that Smith violated Kohorst’s clearly established right to be free from excessive force during the initial takedown, Smith is not entitled to qualified immunity on this claim.

Yvette Felarca v. Robert Birgeneau

891 F.3d 809 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · May 31, 2018

Nonetheless, he believed that the officers were entitled to qualified immunity because the law at the time they acted did not clearly establish the illegality of their conduct. … Nonetheless, the officers are entitled to qualified immunity because the law at the time they acted did not clearly establish the illegality of their conduct.

Wray v. Painter

791 F. Supp. 2d 419 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 28, 2011

Qualified Immunity In his Motion for Summary Judgment, Defendant asserts he is entitled to qualified immunity because he did not violate a clearly established law of which a reasonable officer in his position would have known … The Right Was Clearly Established at the Time of the Violation Under the second prong of the qualified immunity test, the Court must determine whether the right violated was clearly established at the time of the violation

Taylor v. City of New York

269 F. Supp. 2d 68 · District Court, E.D. New York · Jun 23, 2003

To overcome the qualified immunity defense, a plaintiff must first “allege a violation of a clearly-established constitutional or statutory right. … Since plaintiff has plainly alleged a violation of a clearly established constitutional right, Curry v.

Corral v. Montgomery County

4 F. Supp. 3d 739 · District Court, D. Maryland · Mar 5, 2014

Qualified immunity is an affirmative defense to Section 1983 claims and “protects government officials ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … If the right was not clearly established, the qualified immunity doctrine shields a defendant officer from liability.

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.

Rebecca Judge v. City of Lowell

160 F.3d 67 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Nov 18, 1998

The Court specifically reserved judgment on the question whether its “qualified immunity jurisprudence would require a heightened pleading in eases involving individual government officials.” Id. … “This option exists,” the Court went on to state, “even if the official chooses not to plead the affirmative defense of qualified immunity.”

J.C. Bass v. United States Department of Agriculture

737 F.2d 1408 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Aug 6, 1984

The crux of Bass’s argument to the court during this discussion was that if it were shown that the defendants had violated clearly established law, the defendants would be unable to rely upon qualified immunity as a defense … Since a question of fact existed as to whether the defendants had violated clearly established law, the district court properly gave instructions on qualified immunity based on the contingency that the jury might find that

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. … Harlow, at 819, 102 S.Ct. at 2738 . 20 The district court denied the deputies' claim to qualified immunity noting that their combined conduct violated Rivas's clearly established constitutional rights.