Case law

Campbell v. Casey

166 F. Supp. 3d 144 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Feb 29, 2016

Defendant seeks summary judgment' due to qualified immunity as well as on the merits. a. … That right has been clearly established by the U.S. Supreme Court for decades.

Minnis v. Board of Supervisors of Louisiana State University & Agricultural & Mechanical College

972 F. Supp. 2d 878 · District Court, M.D. Louisiana · Sep 18, 2013

To achieve this balance, qualified immunity shields government officials from liability when they perform discretionary functions provided that their conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … immunity because they do not clearly violate any of Minnis’s constitutional rights.

Brown v. Grove

647 F. Supp. 2d 1178 · District Court, C.D. California · Jul 16, 2009

Defendants’ Qualified Immunity Defense Is Denied Defendants have moved to dismiss the Complaint in its entirety on the ground that they are entitled to qualified immunity because they did not violate clearly established federal … To be protected under qualified immunity, a government employee must show that the right the plaintiff complains of was not clearly established at the time the defendants acted or, assuming that it was clearly established

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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. .

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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.

Elmer J. Lappe v. Paul Loeffelholz, Dr. Wiedershine and Harlem Brady

815 F.2d 1173 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jun 25, 1987

Keeping in mind that we are deciding the issue of the officials’ qualified immunity, and that our focus is on the question of whether Lappe’s rights were clearly established, we reject Lappe’s argument. … Loeffelholz violated Lappe’s clearly established federal constitutional rights and is not entitled to immunity.