Case law

Metlin v. Palastra

729 F.2d 353 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Apr 9, 1984

After finding appellate jurisdiction over the denial of the officer’s claim of absolute immunity, we exercise pendent jurisdiction over his qualified immunity claim and conclude that the Army officer is entitled to qualified … Unless the ... plaintiff can establish that the defendant officials have violated clearly established law, the claim for damages must be dismissed.” Sampson v. King, 693 F.2d 566, 570 (5th Cir.1982).

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.

J.R. v. Gloria

599 F. Supp. 2d 182 · District Court, D. Rhode Island · Feb 26, 2009

The second qualified immunity prong examines whether the contours of this right were clearly established in 1996. Anderson, 483 U.S. at 640 , 107 S.Ct. 3034 . … Even if this final parameter of the right was clearly established *202 in 1996, Defendants Gloria and Terry are still entitled to qualified immunity because, under the third and final prong, each would have an objectively

Christina Romero v. Amanda Brown

937 F.3d 514 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Aug 29, 2019

The court held that a violation of the right to family integrity was not clearly established in the context of a social worker investigation, entitling both Brown and Mouton to qualified immunity. … Those allegations do not establish that the officers violated clearly established law.

Maciariello v. Sumner

973 F.2d 295 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Aug 18, 1992

In denying summary judgment for Sumner and Paskoff, the district court ruled that the law regarding retaliation for First Amendment activity is clearly established and that the “defense of qualified immunity does not ’pertain … Consequently, they are entitled to qualified immunity.

Lee v. Sandberg

136 F.3d 94 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Dec 19, 1997

Even if a clearly established statutory or constitutional right is violated, qualified immunity is nonetheless a defense if the officers’ unlawful actions were objectively reasonable “as measured by reference to clearly established … Therefore, the State Troopers are not entitled to summary judgment under the “clearly established right” prong of the qualified immunity standard.

Herman Runge v. David Dove, Henry Kosters, in Their Individual and Official Capacities and the Douglas School District 51-1

857 F.2d 469 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Sep 19, 1988

Finally, qualified immunity is conceptually distinct from the merits of the suit because it addresses a question of law: whether the law clearly established the impermissibility of the defendant’s actions at the time they … Qualified Immunity Dove and Kosters claim that, as a legal matter, they are entitled to qualified immunity. Qualified immunity protects government officials from unsubstantial suits and harassing litigation, Harlow 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.

Eaton v. Meneley

379 F.3d 949 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Aug 3, 2004

Qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions from liability for civil damages unless their conduct violates clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … Finally, we are able to turn to the central issue in the case against Meneley on qualified immunity, which is whether the plaintiffs’ allegations, as construed in the light most favorable to them, would establish a violation

Bonny Edward Taylor v. Henry P. Hughes

920 F.3d 729 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Apr 3, 2019

Constitutional claims and qualified immunity Qualified immunity shields “government officials ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … There are two parts to the qualified-immunity analysis: (1) the relevant facts must set forth a violation of a constitutional right, and (2) the defendant must have violated a constitutional right that was clearly established

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

Eric Wenzel v. Carl Storm

899 F.3d 598 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Aug 9, 2018

Qualified immunity shields a law enforcement officer from liability in a § 1983 action unless the officer’s conduct violates a clearly established constitutional or statutory right of which a reasonable person would have … An officer is entitled to qualified immunity “unless (1) the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, establishes a violation of a constitutional or statutory right, and (2) the right was clearly established

Derek Thomas v. Jacqueline Carmichael

Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jan 23, 2026

To defeat a qualified immunity defense, in addition to showing that the defendant official was deliber- ately indifferent to the plaintiff’s serious medical need, the plaintiff must establish that the right was clearly established … plaintiff’s clearly established right.

Derek Thomas v. Jacqueline Carmichael

Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jan 23, 2026

To defeat a qualified immunity defense, in addition to showing that the defendant official was deliber- ately indifferent to the plaintiff’s serious medical need, the plaintiff must establish that the right was clearly established … plaintiff’s clearly established right.

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.

Parkulo v. West Virginia Board of Probation & Parole

199 W. Va. 161 · West Virginia Supreme Court · Feb 11, 1997

for official acts if the involved conduct did not violate clearly established laws of which a reasonable official would have known. … acts if the involved conduct did not violate clearly established laws of which a reasonable official would have known.

Veneklase v. City of Fargo

78 F.3d 1264 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Apr 24, 1996

immunity and where issue appealed concerned whether or not certain given facts showed violation of "clearly established" law). … officials performing discretionary functions may rely on the defense of qualified immunity to shield them from liability for civil damages unless their conduct violates "clearly established statutory or constitutional rights

Bland v. Roberts

857 F. Supp. 2d 599 · District Court, E.D. Virginia · Apr 24, 2012

Qualified Immunity 3 “Government officials performing discretionary functions are entitled to qualified immunity from liability for civil damages to the extent that ‘their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … The Defendant is entitled to qualified immunity.

Hawkins v. Baca

114 F. Supp. 2d 987 · District Court, C.D. California · Sep 22, 2000

Public officials sued under § 1983 are entitled to qualified immunity if: (1) the constitutional right they allegedly violated was not clearly established at the time of the violation; or (2) a reasonable official would have … The question was whether that policy violated clearly established law.

Tonja Ames v. King County

846 F.3d 340 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jan 13, 2017

City of Tustin, 837 F.3d 1005, 1010 (9th Cir. 2016) (“A defendant who appeals a denial of qualified immunity on the ground that his conduct did not violate the Fourth Amendment and, in any event, did not violate clearly established … IV “In determining whether an officer is entitled to qualified immunity, we consider (1) whether there has been a violation of a constitutional right; and (2) whether that right was clearly established at the time of