Case law

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.”

Seaman v. Karr

114 Wash. App. 665 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Dec 20, 2002

Clearly Established Law To determine whether a federal right is clearly established, we look first to United States Supreme Court precedent and then to decisions of the controlling Circuit Court of Appeals. … For qualified immunity purposes, “clearly established” means: “[T]he contours of the right must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing *681 violates that right.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 .

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.

Mink v. Knox

566 F. Supp. 2d 1217 · District Court, D. Colorado · Jun 12, 2008

The doctrine of qualified immunity shields public officials from damages actions unless their conduct was unreasonable in light of clearly established law. Elder v. … Whether the application of the Supreme Court’s First Amendment cases to the Colorado criminal libel statute was clearly established under the circumstances of this case The second prong of the qualified immunity inquiry requires

Asociación De Subscripción Conjunta Del Seguro De Responsabilidad Obligatorio v. Flores Galarza

484 F.3d 1 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Mar 1, 2007

Second Prong: Constitutional Right was “Clearly Established” at Time of Violation “The second question [of the qualified immunity analysis] deals with fair warning; it asks whether the law was clearly established at the time … The qualified immunity inquiry recognizes that “[i]t is not always evident at the time an official takes an action that a clearly established right is involved.

Perez v. County of Westchester

83 F. Supp. 2d 435 · District Court, S.D. New York · Feb 16, 2000

Qualified immunity shields government officials from liability for damages stemming from their performance of discretionary official functions “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … Indeed, “[u]nless the plaintiffs allegations state a claim of violation of clearly established law, a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal before the commencement of discovery.” Mitchell v.

James Wilburn Feagley v. Bill Waddill, Superintendent, Abilene State School

868 F.2d 1437 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Apr 4, 1989

In denying this motion, the district court determined that a cause of action under section 1983 had been asserted and that none of the defendants had established entitlement to qualified immunity. … Creighton, 483 U.S. 635 , 107 S.Ct. 3034 , 97 L.Ed.2d 523 (1987), the Court further refined the principles of qualified immunity by holding that the right allegedly violated by the defendant’s conduct “must have been ‘clearly