Case law

Levon Brooks v. Steven Hayne

860 F.3d 819 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jun 27, 2017

asks whether the right in question was ‘clearly established’ at the time of the violation.” 10 4 Brooks’ state law claims against Dr. … Qualified immunity is a complete defense, and Defendants are entitled to summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity unless Plaintiffs can show triable issues as to whether Defendants violated a clearly established

Couser v. Somers

District Court, D. Kansas · Jul 1, 2019

Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 694–95 (1978) (establishing standard under § 1983 for when a municipality may be held liable for the unconstitutional acts of its employee(s)). A. … Gilley, 500 U.S. 226, 232 (1991) (“One of the purposes of immunity, absolute or qualified, is to spare a defendant not only unwarranted liability, but unwarranted demands customarily imposed upon those defending

Dijon Sharpe v. Winterville Police Department

59 F.4th 674 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Feb 7, 2023

When the stop occurred, it was not clearly established that the officer’s actions violated the passenger’s First Amendment rights. So qualified immunity bars that claim. I. … Walker, A Qualified Defense of Qualified Immunity, 93 NOTRE DAME L.

Kindra O'Bryant v. DCP&P

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Sep 16, 2026

If the specific right was not clearly established, the official is entitled to qualified immunity. Id. A. … established” prong of the qualified immunity analysis.

Doe v. Whelan

732 F.3d 151 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Oct 17, 2013

Such a state official is entitled to qualified immunity from actions under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 “unless the official's conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right.” Pearson v. … Where the law is clearly established, “a caseworker is . . . entitled to qualified immunity if officers of reasonable competence could disagree on the legality of the action at issue in its particular factual context.”

Perez v. Oakland County

466 F.3d 416 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Oct 18, 2006

We thus move to the second step of the qualified immunity test; we determine whether the right violated was “clearly established” at the time of the violation. Myers, 422 F.3d at 352 (citing Estate of Carter v. … We ultimately find that Rice is entitled to qualified immunity because no law exists that would clearly establish for a person in Rice’s position that she was violating Perez’s Eighth Amendment rights.

Angela Borrell v. Bloomsburg University

870 F.3d 154 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Aug 30, 2017

Ficca is entitled to qualified immunity as long as she does not violate a “clearly established” constitutional or federal right. Sharp, 669 F.3d at 159 (quoting Saucier v. … And the district court cases cited cannot clearly establish law for qualified immunity purposes in any event. See Camreta v. Greene, 563 U.S. 692 , 709 n.7, 131 S.Ct. 2020 , 179 L.Ed.2d 1118 (2011).

Fahirri Dannah v. City of Grand Rapids

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · May 29, 2026

The district court rejected the officers’ qualified-immunity defense, reasoning that a jury could find that they violated Dannah’s clearly established Fourth Amendment rights. … Page 4 Qualified immunity saves officers “the time, expense and risk of money-damages actions unless they violate clearly established constitutional rights.” Moore v.

Oliverio Martinez v. City of Oxnard Oxnard Police Dept. Art Lopez, Chief Maria Pena Andrew Salinas Ron Zavala, and Ben Chavez

337 F.3d 1091 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jul 30, 2003

We entertained at that time only the interlocutory appeal from the district court’s denial of qualified immunity to Chavez. … Because, under the facts alleged by Martinez, Chavez violated Martinez’s clearly established due process rights, see Saucier v.

Brown v. St. Landry Parish Sheriff's Dept

298 F. Supp. 3d 879 · District Court, W.D. Louisiana · Mar 21, 2018

, not only from suit, but from "liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known." 31 Qualified immunity … The second prong of the qualified-immunity analysis asks whether the right in question was "clearly established" at the time of the violation.

Matthew Livers v. Tim Dunning

700 F.3d 340 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Nov 8, 2012

DISCUSSION Appellants are entitled to qualified immunity unless (1) they violated a federal constitutional or statutory right belonging to Livers or Sampson (2) that was clearly established at the time of the violation … Appellants are entitled to qualified immunity on Livers’ failure-to- intervene claim. G.

Pahk v. Hawaii

109 F. Supp. 2d 1262 · District Court, D. Hawaii · Jul 25, 2000

On the section 1983 claims (Counts V, VI, and VII), qualified immunity bars claims against state officials in their individual capacities if their conduct did not violate clearly established federal statutory or constitutional … The plaintiff bears the burden of proof that the right allegedly violated was clearly established at the time of the alleged misconduct.

Veney v. Ojeda

321 F. Supp. 2d 733 · District Court, E.D. Virginia · Jun 15, 2004

The affirmative defense of qualified immunity shields government officials from civil liability for alleged civil rights violations to the extent the officials’ “conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … If no constitutional violation is found, qualified immunity is clearly unnecessary, as plaintiffs underlying constitutional claim simply fails.

Courtney v. Oklahoma Ex Rel. Department of Public Safety

722 F.3d 1216 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jul 15, 2013

Ct. 2088, 2095–96 (2012) (discussing Supreme Court authority which had “injected uncertainty” into clearly established law in the qualified immunity context). Smith’s reading of Moore, Devenpeck, and Atwater is flawed … Alternatively, the district court concluded Smith was entitled to qualified immunity on Courtney’s claim of unlawful arrest because he did not violate clearly established law.

Fairman v. Konteh

361 F. Supp. 2d 704 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Mar 23, 2005

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity protects “government officials performing discretionary functions ... from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … If so — if the constitutional right was clearly established, the defendant cannot maintain the defense of qualified immunity. C.

Fanning v. Montgomery County Children & Youth Services

702 F. Supp. 1184 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 29, 1988

Mason argues that he violated no clearly established right of the plaintiffs, and is therefore free from liability even under the less protective cloak of qualified immunity. … Qualified Immunity The remaining question with respect to Mr. Mason is whether the plaintiffs have alleged a violation of a clearly established right of which Mr. Mason should have been aware.

Kennedy Ex Rel. Gorton v. City of Ridgefield

439 F.3d 1055 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Mar 6, 2006

immunity, and the issue appealed concerns whether the facts demonstrated a violation of clearly established law. … Southwest Airlines, 124 F.3d 1103,1107 (9th Cir.1997) (“[W]e have jurisdiction over an interlocutory appeal from the denial of qualified immunity where the appeal focuses on whether the defendants violated a clearly established

Edwards v. Jolliff-Blake

907 F.3d 1052 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Nov 1, 2018

right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation." … We conduct this inquiry against the backdrop of the Supreme Court's repeated (and recent) reminders "not to define clearly established law at a high level of generality" and with the understanding that qualified immunity

Putnam v. Keller

332 F.3d 541 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jul 22, 2003

We will affirm a grant of summary judgment based on qualified immunity if the "conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known." Harlow v. … clearly established.

Huertas Morales v. Agosto-Alicea

278 F. Supp. 2d 164 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Aug 1, 2003

Qualified Immunity According to Defendants, the conduct of Juan Agosto Alicea is protected by the doctrine of qualified immunity because it was imminently 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