Case law

Torcasio v. Murray

862 F. Supp. 1482 · District Court, E.D. Virginia · Sep 14, 1994

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity insulates government officials from civil damages liability when the officials’ actions do not “violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … Evaluating a defense of qualified immunity involves three discrete determinations: (1) identification of the specific right allegedly violated; (2) determination of whether the right was so clearly established as to put a

Fennell v. Gilstrap

559 F.3d 1212 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Feb 27, 2009

The court then examined whether Gilstrap’s actions violated clearly established law. (Id. at 33.) … in violation of clearly established law.

Jackson v. McCurry

303 F. Supp. 3d 1367 · District Court, M.D. Georgia · Dec 22, 2017

To overcome a qualified immunity defense, Plaintiffs must show both (1) that the relevant defendant violated their constitutional rights and (2) that those rights were clearly established at the time of the violation. … To overcome Oates's qualified immunity defense, Plaintiffs must prove that it was clearly established at the time of Oates's search of EDJ's phone that such a search would violate the Fourth Amendment.

Brown v. Newton County Sheriff's Office

273 F. Supp. 3d 1142 · District Court, N.D. Georgia · Aug 7, 2017

Qualified Immunity Defense Defendants argue that Officers Shirley and Ramsey are entitled to qualified immunity and therefore cannot be liable for shooting Ms. Brown. … There are three ways to show that a right was clearly established: (1) a “materially similar” case has already been decided; (2) a broad statement of principle within the Constitution, statute, or case law clearly establishes

Courtney v. Oklahoma Ex Rel. Department of Public Safety

722 F.3d 1216 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jul 15, 2013

Ct. 2088, 2095–96 (2012) (discussing Supreme Court authority which had “injected uncertainty” into clearly established law in the qualified immunity context). Smith’s reading of Moore, Devenpeck, and Atwater is flawed … Alternatively, the district court concluded Smith was entitled to qualified immunity on Courtney’s claim of unlawful arrest because he did not violate clearly established law.

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

Weg v. Macchiarola

995 F.2d 15 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jun 4, 1993

“Public officials are entitled to qualified immunity from liability for civil damages- As long as their conduct does not violate a clearly established statutory or constitutional right, they cannot be held liable.” … Where statutory language may be easily read to cover particular conduct, a prosecution based on that language does not lose immunity absent “clearly established” caselaw to the contrary.

Gelatt v. County of Broome, NY

811 F. Supp. 61 · District Court, N.D. New York · Jan 15, 1993

Qualified immunity, on the other hand, shields the official from civil liability when, in performing a discretionary function, his conduct did not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a … that were ‘clearly established’ at the time it was taken.”

Melanie Kelsay v. Matt Ernst

905 F.3d 1081 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Sep 27, 2018

Qualified immunity shields a government official from suit under § 1983 if his "conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known." Harlow v. … The district court rejected Ernst's defense of qualified immunity.

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.

Gurski v. State Police Dept.

242 N.J. Super. 148 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jun 4, 1990

action is a violation) violates a clearly established right. … Plaintiffs would be able to convert the rule of qualified immunity that our cases plainly establish into a rule of virtually unqualified liability simply by alleging violation of extremely abstract rights.

McLean v. Gordon

548 F.3d 613 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Dec 1, 2008

In considering a motion for summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds, the court makes two inquiries. … “If so, then [the court] determine[s] whether the constitutional right was clearly established at the time.” Flowers, 478 F.3d at 872 .

Derek Thomas v. Jacqueline Carmichael

Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jan 23, 2026

To defeat a qualified immunity defense, in addition to showing that the defendant official was deliber- ately indifferent to the plaintiff’s serious medical need, the plaintiff must establish that the right was clearly established … plaintiff’s clearly established right.

Derek Thomas v. Jacqueline Carmichael

Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jan 23, 2026

To defeat a qualified immunity defense, in addition to showing that the defendant official was deliber- ately indifferent to the plaintiff’s serious medical need, the plaintiff must establish that the right was clearly established … plaintiff’s clearly established right.

Derrick Dorrell Turner v. Arkansas Insurance Department, Mike Pickens

297 F.3d 751 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Sep 11, 2002

The issue presented on appeal is a narrow one: Whether, for qualified immunity purposes, it was “clearly established” on September 23, 1999, that 42 U.S.C. § 1981 conferred upon an at-will employee the right to be free from … To do so, in essence, would give these cases the force and effect of law on certain propositions in the narrow context of determining whether the law was "clearly established” for qualified immunity purposes.

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.

Prescott v. City of Meriden

80 Conn. App. 697 · Connecticut Appellate Court · Dec 30, 2003

On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court improperly concluded that he did not qualify for the identifiable person-imminent harm exception to the doctrine of governmental immunity. … “The doctrines that determine the tort liability of municipal employees are well established.

Levon Brooks v. Steven Hayne

860 F.3d 819 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jun 27, 2017

asks whether the right in question was ‘clearly established’ at the time of the violation.” 10 4 Brooks’ state law claims against Dr. … Qualified immunity is a complete defense, and Defendants are entitled to summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity unless Plaintiffs can show triable issues as to whether Defendants violated a clearly established

Davis v. City of Tulsa, Oklahoma

380 F. Supp. 3d 1163 · District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · Mar 31, 2019

Qualified Immunity Sergeant Wollmershauser asserts that he is entitled to qualified immunity. … clearly established under the second prong.

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.