Case law

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.

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

Doe v. Marsh

918 F. Supp. 580 · District Court, N.D. New York · Mar 19, 1996

Finally, the court notes that qualified immunity protection turns on the “ ‘objective legal reasonableness’ ” of the allegedly unlawful official action “assessed in light of the legal rules that were ‘clearly established’ … Accordingly, in this case the court cannot grant the defendants’ motion for summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity predicated upon the lack of a clearly established constitutionally protected right.

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

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

Keyonte Ashford, Sr. v. Michael Raby

951 F.3d 798 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Mar 5, 2020

But the district court entered summary judgment for Raby based on qualified immunity. The court found that Raby’s use of force was legal and (even if it wasn’t) did not violate clearly established law. … In the end, nothing about Raby’s use of Ruger to seize Ashford violated clearly established law. Thus, Raby is entitled to qualified immunity. We affirm.

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

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.

Emerson v. Borland

927 S.W.2d 709 · Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin) · Sep 18, 1996

(ii) Qualified immunity. … To preclude immunity from suit, the clearly established right must be the federal right on which the claim for relief is based and must be established at the time of the violation. Elder v.

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.

Blue v. Koren

72 F.3d 1075 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Dec 26, 1995

Circuit in Martin, 812 F.2d at 1432 , “[t]he ‘clearly established law' and ‘objective reasonableness’ facets of current qualified immunity doctrine tug in opposite directions where, as here, the ‘clearly established law' … When such a motion is based on assertion of qualified immunity, the first issue is whether a clearly established right is at stake. See Siegert, 500 U.S. at 232 , 111 S.Ct. at 1793 .

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

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).

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.

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

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.

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.

Chipman v. City of Florence

866 F. Supp. 332 · District Court, E.D. Kentucky · Oct 12, 1994

After reviewing the parties’ briefs and conducting oral argument, this court concluded that the defendant law enforcement officers had not violated clearly established law and were, therefore, entitled to qualified immunity … As the constitutional rights which the defendant law enforcement officers allegedly violated in this ease are not clearly established, those defendants are entitled to 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.