Case law

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

Smith v. Kenny

678 F. Supp. 2d 1093 · District Court, D. New Mexico · Jul 24, 2009

to qualified immunity. … issue of qualified immunity.

Parker v. American Traffic Solutions, Inc.

835 F.3d 1363 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 31, 2016

It is by now well-established that an order denying federal qualified immunity satisfies the above requirements. See Schmelz v. Monroe Cty., 954 F.2d 1540 , 1543 (11th Cir. 1992) (citing Mitchell v. … Rule 38 sanctions are appropriately imposed against appellants who raise “clearly frivolous claims in the face of established law and clear facts.” Farese 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.”

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.

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.

Jesus Hernandez v. Unknown Named Agents, et

785 F.3d 117 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Apr 24, 2015

That is the chore of the first prong of the qualified-immunity test, which we do not address. The alleged right at issue was not clearly established, under these facts, in 2010. The judgment of dismissal is AFFIRMED. … We hold unanimously that Agent Mesa has qualified immunity from this suit for a Fifth Amendment substantive due process violation because he did not violate any clearly established rights flowing from that Amendment.

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

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

Dillon Bracken v. Kinchung Chung

869 F.3d 771 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Aug 23, 2017

Qualified Immunity We first address whether Chung may invoke the doctrine of qualified immunity. “There are two questions that must be answered” when an officer seeks qualified immunity. Jensen v. … CHUNG 7 is available generally, we must determine whether [the officer] is entitled to it in this case,” i.e., whether the officer “violated a clearly established constitutional . . . right.”

Frances Green v. Monmouth University (080612) (Monmouth County and Statewide)

237 N.J. 516 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · May 7, 2019

of immunity is decided once it is established that the entity itself is “charitable,” “religious,” or “educational.” … The panel found that the concerts were nevertheless “clearly ‘educational’ and ‘charitable’ within the intent of the Charitable Immunity Act.” Ibid.

Robbin Amanda Bayse v. Ted Philbin

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 1, 2025

Although the magistrate judge acknowledged that “the law can be ‘clearly established’ for qualified immunity purposes only by decisions of the U.S. … “In this circuit, the law can be ‘clearly established’ for qualified immunity purposes only by decisions of the U.S.

Buchhorn v. Douglas County, Kansas, Board of Commissioners

District Court, D. Kansas · Jul 2, 2025

clearly established if a case exists that is factually identical. … than their prosecutorial duties, they are entitled to qualified immunity so long as their conduct does not violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known

Argueta v. Jaradi

94 F.4th 475 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Feb 29, 2024

Because of the disputed facts, and the clearly established law preventing officers from using deadly force after incapacitating an individual, the officer was precluded from qualified immunity. Id. at 339. … are material to the application of qualified immunity.

Williams v. Ontario County Sheriff's Department

662 F. Supp. 2d 321 · District Court, W.D. New York · Sep 21, 2009

Qualified immunity shields law enforcement officials who perform discretionary functions from liability if their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable prison … to qualified immunity.

Allen v. City & County of Honolulu

39 F.3d 936 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Oct 28, 1994

immunity because he had not violated “clearly established” federal law. … The Supreme Court had clearly established an inmate’s right of access to a law library well before the time covered by Allen’s complaint. See Bounds v.

Martinez v. New York City Tr. Auth.

2022 NY Slip Op 00252 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jan 13, 2022

At the same time, we find that the TA was not entitled to pretrial dismissal of the complaint on the basis of qualified immunity. … In that case, the Court of Appeals emphasized that a governmental body claiming qualified immunity based on its having studied a particular condition alleged to have caused injury must establish that the study was indeed

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.

Burdeshaw v. Snell

350 F. Supp. 2d 944 · District Court, M.D. Alabama · Jun 4, 2004

Federal Claims and Qualified Immunity 1. General Principles Snell has pled the affirmative defense of qualified immunity. … Under the second prong, the court must determine whether the applicable law was clearly established at the time of the challenged action, that is, whether the defendant would have violated a clearly established right under