Case law

Bass v. Richards

308 F.3d 1081 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Aug 14, 2002

It is subject to appeal, however, when the defendants are public officials asserting a qualified immunity defense and the appealed issue is whether a given set of facts establishes that defendants violated clearly established … Instead, Appellants argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity because Bass' right to affiliate himself with Vorhies, an unannounced candidate, was not clearly established at the time his commission was removed. 21

Lamont Shepard v. T. Quillen

840 F.3d 686 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Oct 26, 2016

Whether Shepard’s right was clearly established Wise may nevertheless be entitled to qualified immunity if the right at issue was not “clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct.” … We thus do not fault Shepard for failing to address the “clearly established” prong of the qualified immunity analysis in his opening brief.

Anthony Norman v. Ashlei Janak, Bobby Lumpkin, Bryan Collier, Shovanda D. Mathis, Margarita Thomas, Rocky Moore, and Tammy Shelby

Texas Court of Appeals, 15th District · May 1, 2025

See 2 Although it is more precise to say Defendants would be entitled to “qualified immunity” under federal law from Norman’s Section 1983 claims, “official immunity” and “qualified immunity” are often used … Further, qualified immunity under federal law is analogous to state law official immunity and “protects governmental officers with discretionary authority from liability so long as their conduct does not violate clearly established

Collins v. School Board of Dade County

981 F.2d 1203 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jan 26, 1993

Most important for qualified immunity purposes, Loudermill established no bright line test for when a delay would become a constitutional violation. 4 See generally Barts v. … Joyner, 865 F.2d 1187, 1194 (11th Cir.1989) (“Harlow’s ‘clearly established’ standard requires that a bright line be crossed” if defense of qualified immunity is to be overcome).

Drogosch v. Metcalf

557 F.3d 372 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Feb 25, 2009

Clearly established right For a right to be clearly established, “[t]he contours of the right must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that right.” … Drogosch has accordingly satisfied the “clearly established” prong of the qualified-immunity analysis. D.

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. .

Tasker v. Moore

738 F. Supp. 1005 · District Court, S.D. West Virginia · Mar 30, 1990

Thus, the threshold question to be answered by a court presented with a defense of qualified immunity is whether the law was “clearly established” at the time the action complained of was taken. … action is a violation) violates a clearly established right.

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.

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.

Rigler v. Lampert

248 F. Supp. 3d 1224 · District Court, D. Wyoming · Mar 31, 2017

Qualified immunity shields government officials from civil damages liability unless the official violated a statutory or constitutional right that was clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct. … Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 236 , 129 S.Ct. 808 , 172 L.Ed.2d 565 (2009), we held that courts may grant qualified immunity on the ground that a purported right was not “clearly established” by prior case law, without resolving

Sheila T. Harper v. Lawrence County

584 F.3d 1030 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Oct 7, 2009

on qualified immunity. … Were Harper’s rights clearly established at the time?

Wullschleger v. Peters

28 F. Supp. 2d 549 · District Court, D. Nebraska · Nov 20, 1998

a qualified immunity defense if they prove that their conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … Qualified immunity is a question of law.

Kinney v. Weaver

301 F.3d 253 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jul 31, 2002

Not long after Harlow , the Court refined the qualified-immunity standard by defining “clearly established” in a way that encompasses this “objective reasonableness” inquiry: To be “clearly established” for purposes of qualified … The doctrine of qualified immunity assumes that reasonably competent officials know clearly established constitutional or statutory rights.

Ferris v. County of Kennebec

44 F. Supp. 2d 62 · District Court, D. Maine · Mar 5, 1999

Failure to State a Claim and Qualified Immunity 1. … Qualified Immunity Sprowl’s contention that her, liability is precluded by qualified immunity is similarly unpersuasive.

Mooneyham v. BOARD OF CHIROPRACTIC EX'RS

802 So. 2d 200 · Supreme Court of Alabama · May 11, 2001

The defendants argue that they are immune from suit as to this claim because, they say, Mooneyham has not alleged a violation of a clearly established constitutional right. We agree. … The threshold question for determining whether the doctrine of qualified immunity applies to a given constitutional claim is whether the plaintiff has alleged the violation of a clearly recognized constitutional right.

William J. Benson v. Robert H. Allphin

786 F.2d 268 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Apr 11, 1986

Qualified Immunity As government officials performing discretionary functions, Allphin and Rummel are shielded from liability for civil damages in a § 1983 action unless their conduct violated “clearly established statutory … Although the Supreme Court has articulated the rule for qualified immunity, it has not fully explained what it means by the phrase “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights.”

Weaver v. Brenner

40 F.3d 527 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Oct 26, 1994

Clearly Established Right 23 The threshold issue in deciding whether a public official is entitled to qualified immunity is, as noted, whether the federal right was clearly established at the time the alleged violation occurred … the relevant rights to have been clearly established in 1989 is affirmed.

Long v. Norris

929 F.2d 1111 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 29, 1991

established" for purposes of qualified immunity. … established at the time of the searches for purposes of qualified immunity.

Gonzalez v. City of Phoenix

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jan 8, 2026

Under the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis, we examine whether the officers’ constitutional violation was clearly established. … So the clearly established prong of qualified immunity must be analyzed officer by officer. The Ninth Circuit has struggled to apply clearly established law properly in the past. See Kisela v.