Case law

Hensley v. Suttles

167 F. Supp. 3d 753 · District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Mar 9, 2016

In response, these Defendants claim they are entitled to summary judgment based on qualified immunity. … In their summary judgment opening brief, the Defendants make no arguments beyond public official immunity/qualified immunity.

Blankenship v. Warren County, Va.

918 F. Supp. 970 · District Court, W.D. Virginia · Mar 19, 1996

The doctrine of qualified immunity shields officials who perform discretionary functions “from civil liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights … “Under Harlow , therefore, the focus of an inquiry into a defendant’s qualified immunity is ordinarily the ‘objective reasonableness’ of the official’s discretionary conduct as measured by reference to clearly established

Cortez v. McCauley

478 F.3d 1108 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Feb 19, 2007

permissible (violates clearly established law). … We held that, for purposes of qualified immunity, the plaintiff had not shown the violation of a clearly established right, given a lack of evidence of physical injury or “apparent physical damage to the plaintiff's wrists

James W. Smoak v. Eric Hall, David Bush Jeff Phann Tim McHood Brian Brock Jerry Andrews, Lieutenant

460 F.3d 768 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 25, 2006

A right is “clearly established” for qualified immunity purposes when the contours of the right are sufficiently clear, even if the specific action in question has never been held unlawful. See Sample, 409 F.3d at 698 . … established at the time as to deny the defendants the benefits of qualified immunity.

Michael Chrestman v. Metro Gov't of Nashville & Davidson Cnty., Tenn.

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Sep 16, 2025

That this case comes to us at the motion-to-dismiss stage complicates our analysis of the clearly established prong of the officers’ qualified-immunity defense. … There, we explained that “dismissing for qualified immunity” on the clearly established prong “is sometimes difficult because the clearly established inquiry may turn on case-specific details that must be fleshed out in discovery

Atcherson v. Siebenmann

605 F.2d 1058 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Sep 13, 1979

The Qualified Immunity Defense. … While we hold infra that Atcherson’s allegations of misconduct by her fellow probation officers qualify for constitutional protection, that conclusion was by no means “clearly established” at the time of the events in question

Matthew Tarabochia v. Mickey Adkins

766 F.3d 1115 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Sep 9, 2014

“Qualified immunity protects government officials from civil damages ‘insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’” … Clearly Established Although this suspicionless stop and search violated the Fourth Amendment, the WDFW officers are still entitled to qualified immunity on this claim if the Tarabochias’ rights were not clearly established

Retzlaff v. De La VINA

606 F. Supp. 2d 654 · District Court, W.D. Texas · Mar 4, 2009

Finally, defendants assert qualified immunity as a defense to Retzlaffs federal constitutional claims. Defendants have presented evidence that their actions were reasonable in light of clearly established law. Kinney v. … that defendants’ actions violated clearly established federal law.

Denise MARKHAM, Et Al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. Francis E. WHITE, Et Al., Defendants-Appellants

172 F.3d 486 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Mar 31, 1999

Qualified Immunity A defendant raising a claim of qualified immunity is not directly attacking the merits of a plaintiffs claim. … Furthermore, this principle was sufficiently well established that it required the denial of the defendants’ qualified immunity motion in the Nabozny case. Id.

Green v. Henley

727 F. Supp. 582 · District Court, D. Kansas · Nov 13, 1989

immunity. … Accordingly, summary judgment in defendants’ favor on the basis of qualified immunity is appropriate as well.

Grayson v. Ross

454 F.3d 802 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jul 19, 2006

If the answer is no, we grant qualified immunity. If the answer is yes, we go on to determine whether the right was clearly established. … Sharum is entitled to qualified immunity. 27 b.

Losee v. Preece

District Court, D. Utah · Mar 30, 2022

In particular, Defendants contend the Court did not address the second prong of the qualified-immunity analysis, which is whether the unconstitutional conduct alleged was “clearly established.” (Id.) … Plaintiff counters that Defendants’ qualified-immunity argument is moot. (ECF No. 53, at 3.) Defendants are correct that the Court erred in not giving the clearly-established prong the required treatment.

Ryan Steinhoff v. Matthew Malovrh

Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Mar 24, 2026

The district court further concluded that Detective Kowalczyk was entitled to qualified immunity because Steinhoff did not identify clearly established law “prohibiting the use of a takedown under the dynamic cir- cumstances … As for the second prong of the qualified immunity inquiry, a constitutional right is clearly established if existing prece- dent “place[s] the statutory or constitutional question beyond debate.” Rivas-Villegas v.

Beg Investments, LLC v. Alberti

34 F. Supp. 3d 68 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 31, 2014

The doctrine of qualified immunity shields government officials, who are sued in their individual capacity for money damages, for “conduct [that] does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of … That is certainly the case here. 16  The Court thus turns to the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis — whether it was clearly established, in June

Sanguinetti

District Court, M.D. Florida · Feb 20, 2026

right was clearly established at the time of the misconduct. … This claim is barred by qualified immunity.

Reed v. Sheppard

321 F. Supp. 3d 429 · District Court, W.D. New York · Aug 17, 2018

qualified immunity because, following the Supreme Court's 2006 decision in Samson , supra , it is not clearly established that some particularized suspicion is required before searching a parolee or his residence. … Because "[i]t is unclear whether the Second Circuit's decisions are consistent with the Supreme Court's decision in Samson ," "the right is not 'clearly established' for qualified-immunity purposes." Id.

Sellers ex rel. Sellers v. Baer

28 F.3d 895 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jul 8, 1994

We hold that the conduct of the officers did not violate a clearly established constitutional right of which a reasonable officer would have known, and the officers therefore are entitled to qualified immunity. C. … Accordingly, the officers are entitled to qualified immunity because even the right broadly asserted in this case was not clearly established in 1986. .

Tiffany King v. Charles Blackwood

Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Jul 2, 2026

Officers Berry and Linster advance three more arguments for why the right was not clearly established. … There, an officer made supervisory rounds without looking inside the cells, and we held that he had not violated clearly established law “because there is no clearly established constitutional right to properly

Angel Mendez v. County of Los Angeles

897 F.3d 1067 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jul 27, 2018

The officers could not benefit from qualified immunity, because at the time of the incident, case law had clearly established that the officers’ entry was unlawful. Mendez v. … The law on all these points was clearly established at the time, so the officers could not obtain qualified immunity for their unlawful search. Id. at 1191.

Dorsey v. Wallace

134 F. Supp. 2d 1364 · District Court, N.D. Georgia · Oct 17, 2000

In doing so, the plaintiffs cannot discharge their burden of showing that a right is clearly established by referring to general rules and abstract rights in order to strip the officers of their qualified immunity. … To overcome qualified immunity, the plaintiffs must show that: (1) the officers violated a federal constitutional right; and (2) the right was clearly established at the time of the violation. See Santamorena v.