Case law

James v. City of Birmingham

926 F. Supp. 2d 1260 · District Court, N.D. Alabama · Feb 19, 2013

Qualified immunity “offers complete protection for government officials sued in their individual capacities if their conduct ‘does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … that were allegedly violated were clearly established.

Hafley v. Lohman

90 F.3d 264 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Sep 3, 1996

We note that "qualified immunity is an affirmative defense," and "it will be upheld on a 12(b)(6) motion only when the immunity is established on the face of the complaint." Id. … The defendants in this case are entitled to qualified immunity unless Hafley has alleged the violation of a constitutional right that was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation. Id.

United States v. Albert Tantalo

680 F.2d 903 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jun 3, 1982

Defense counsel urged that since the appellant had provided immunized testimony before the grand jury, the Government was called upon to present evidence to the court to establish not only an independent basis for the indictment … The district court’s ruling which upheld the indictments, without calling upon the government to establish that the evidence it proposed to present at the trial was untainted by the appellant’s immunized testimony, was in

Hassan Ex Rel. Hassan v. Lubbock Independent School District

55 F.3d 1075 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jun 27, 1995

Questions of law are reviewed ... de novo."5 In examining the claims of qualified immunity on summary judgment, we first inquire whether Hassan has alleged "the violation of a clearly … The determination whether a right is "clearly established" is a more particularized inquiry than Hassan suggests; otherwise, plaintiffs could "convert the rule of qualified immunity ... into a rule of virtually unqualified

Marc Barrera v. City of Mount Pleasant, Mich.

12 F.4th 617 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Sep 3, 2021

The other possibility is that the ambiguity in state law shows that the officers did not violate a clearly established right—the second prong of the qualified immunity test. … He has not shown that they violated clearly established law that would pierce the officers’ qualified immunity shield.

Norris v. Engles

494 F.3d 634 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Aug 9, 2007

“If so, then we determine whether the constitutional right was clearly established at the time.” Id. “If either question is answered in the negative, the public official is entitled to qualified immunity.” … a constitutional violation, we need not consider whether her constitutional right to due process was clearly established for purposes of qualified immunity.

Richard Clemons v. John Couch

3 F.4th 897 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 7, 2021

CLEARLY ESTABLISHED RIGHT In the second step of our qualified-immunity analysis, we must determine whether Richard’s constitutional right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation. … Under the clearly established prong of qualified immunity, a constitutional violation must be so clearly established by existing precedent that “every reasonable official would interpret it to establish the particular rule

Guite v. Wright

976 F. Supp. 866 · District Court, D. Minnesota · Sep 25, 1997

Claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Any individual government officials performing discretionary functions have a qualified immunity defense to a Section 1983 claim for damages “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly … in the home, the entry violated clearly established law which a reasonable officer should have known.

Smith v. Mattox

127 F.3d 1416 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Nov 19, 1997

immunity grounds to the extent the appeal concerns pure issues of law, such as whether the law was clearly established); Cottrell v. … An official sued as an individual is entitled to qualified immunity if his conduct "does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known."6 A reasonable official's

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.

Mallin v. City of Eastlake

755 F. Supp. 2d 819 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Sep 29, 2010

Violation of a Clearly Established Right Thompson may still be entitled to qualified immunity if Mallin’s right to be free from having his face slammed into a car and being choked was not clearly established at the time of … Because Mallín failed to carry his burden of proving that a reasonable officer should have known that Gonzales’s actions violated a clearly established right, the Court must grant Gonzales qualified immunity as a matter of

Mutter v. Town of Salem

945 F. Supp. 402 · District Court, D. New Hampshire · Nov 14, 1996

The doctrine of 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 … The qualified immunity analysis in this circuit is two-pronged: (1) “the constitutional right asserted by the plaintiff [must be] clearly established at the time of the alleged violation,” and (2) “a reasonable official situated

Peelman v. Delaware Joint Vocational School District Board of Education

763 F. Supp. 268 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · May 3, 1991

Fitzgerald involved the application and scope of the qualified immunity of federal executive officials arising under federal law, some questioned the applicability of the Harlow decision to a defense of qualified immunity … Therefore, because the same facts which would establish the validity of the plaintiff’s claim under § 1983, would serve to deny the defendants the protection afforded by the doctrine of qualified immunity, the defendants

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

Contreras v. Dona Ana County Board

965 F.3d 1114 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jul 20, 2020

So I join Chief Judge Tymkovich’s opinion as far as it addresses the “clearly established” prong of the qualified immunity analysis. … A court holds, as the Eleventh Circuit did, that the officer is entitled to qualified immunity because his actions did not violate any clearly established rights. See Corbitt v.

Foster v. McGrail

844 F. Supp. 16 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jan 25, 1994

In addition, even if plaintiff succeeded in proving a prima facie claim for a state constitutional violation, he failed to overcome defendant’s qualified immunity as established *25 under state law. … is claiming “have violated a right under Federal or State constitutional or statutory law that was ‘clearly established’ at the time.”

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)

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.

Prokey v. Watkins

942 F.2d 67 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Aug 19, 1991

The general rule of qualified immunity, set out in Harlow v. … Explaining the Harlow standard, the Court said that, [ujnless the plaintiff's allegations state a claim of violation of clearly established law, a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal before the

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.