Case law

Elliot-Park v. Manglona

592 F.3d 1003 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jan 12, 2010

In a qualified immunity appeal, we normally look first to whether a constitutional violation was alleged and then to whether the defendants have qualified immunity as a matter of law. See Pearson v. … Law enforcement officials are entitled to qualified immunity even where their conduct violated a constitutional right unless that right was clearly established at the time of the violation. Saucier v.

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

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.

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

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).

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.

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

Harris v. Lord

957 F. Supp. 471 · District Court, S.D. New York · Mar 7, 1997

Qualified Immunity Defendants argue that even if their actions rise to the level of a constitutional violation, they are protected from liability by qualified immunity because their actions did not contravene clearly established … Even where such constitutional rights are clearly established, qualified immunity will protect a government official if it was objectively reasonable for him to believe his acts did not violate those rights. Id.

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

Fitzpatrick v. Meyer

809 F. Supp. 1292 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Dec 9, 1992

A defendant is entitled to summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds if he shows in light of clearly established principles that he could, as a matter of law, reasonably have believed that his actions were lawful. … The Defendants assert that qualified immunity is proper because Holbrook did not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights; Holbrook’s inspection of the records was within her discretionary authority

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

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.

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.

Von Derhaar v. Watson

109 F.4th 817 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jul 30, 2024

“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 … “The second prong of the qualified- immunity analysis asks whether the right in question was ‘clearly established’ at the time of the violation.” Id. at 656 (quoting Hope v. Pelzer, 536 U.S. 730, 739 (2002)).

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

(PC) Reed v. Racklin

District Court, E.D. California · Sep 30, 2019

Qualified Immunity 4 Qualified immunity shields government actors from civil liability under 42 U.S.C. 1983 if 5 “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … Prunty, 108 F.3d 251, 14 254-55 (9th Cir. 1997) (in qualified immunity context, finding no clearly established right to be 15 free from feigned karate chops towards inmate’s body, including groin area).

JONATHAN CRUZ VS. THE CAMDEN COUNTY POLICE DEPARTMENT (L-3570-17, CAMDEN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jan 11, 2021

Dougherty Also Has Qualified Immunity "The affirmative defense of qualified immunity protects government officials from personal liability for discretionary actions taken in the course of their public responsibilities … "[Q]ualified immunity is applicable unless the official's conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right." Lapolla v. Cnty. of Union, 449 N.J. Super. 288, 304 (App. Div. 2017) (quoting Ramos v.

Spiller v. Harris County

113 F.4th 573 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Aug 30, 2024

However, unique to the qualified immunity context, “to overcome qualified immunity, the plaintiff’s version of those disputed facts must also constitute a violation of clearly established law.” Id. … Sergeant Lindsay is entitled to qualified immunity on Spiller’s excessive force claim.

Brandon Case v. Officer Beasley

Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Feb 17, 2026

If the right was not clearly established, then the Officers are entitled to immunity from liability. Id. … We found that the guard was entitled to qualified immunity because there was no clearly established right “to have a correctional officer look into the cell window while conducting a security check—given

Phillips v. Wiseman

64 O.B.A.J. 2317 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Jul 20, 1993

The defendant/Commissioner now seeks a writ of prohibition in this Court based upon the doctrine of qualified immunity. The defendant/State of Oklahoma also claims immunity. … Trimble, 795 P.2d 1035 (Okla.1990) we explained that qualified immunity shields an official from damages insofar as the official’s conduct did not violate any clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which