Case law

Harris v. Lord

957 F. Supp. 471 · District Court, S.D. New York · Mar 7, 1997

Qualified Immunity Defendants argue that even if their actions rise to the level of a constitutional violation, they are protected from liability by qualified immunity because their actions did not contravene clearly established … Even where such constitutional rights are clearly established, qualified immunity will protect a government official if it was objectively reasonable for him to believe his acts did not violate those rights. Id.

Edwards v. Jolliff-Blake

907 F.3d 1052 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Nov 1, 2018

right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation." … We conduct this inquiry against the backdrop of the Supreme Court's repeated (and recent) reminders "not to define clearly established law at a high level of generality" and with the understanding that qualified immunity

Oliverio Martinez v. City of Oxnard Oxnard Police Dept. Art Lopez, Chief Maria Pena Andrew Salinas Ron Zavala, and Ben Chavez

337 F.3d 1091 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jul 30, 2003

We entertained at that time only the interlocutory appeal from the district court’s denial of qualified immunity to Chavez. … Because, under the facts alleged by Martinez, Chavez violated Martinez’s clearly established due process rights, see Saucier v.

Metlin v. Palastra

729 F.2d 353 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Apr 9, 1984

After finding appellate jurisdiction over the denial of the officer’s claim of absolute immunity, we exercise pendent jurisdiction over his qualified immunity claim and conclude that the Army officer is entitled to qualified … Unless the ... plaintiff can establish that the defendant officials have violated clearly established law, the claim for damages must be dismissed.” Sampson v. King, 693 F.2d 566, 570 (5th Cir.1982).

Barbera v. Smith

654 F. Supp. 386 · District Court, S.D. New York · Feb 9, 1987

Plaintiff’s claims may be dismissed on grounds of qualified immunity if defendants show that “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known … Unless plaintiff’s allegations state a claim of violation of clearly established law, defendants pleading qualified immunity, as Martin and Schlessinger do here, are entitled to dismissal before the commencement of discovery

Goodson v. City of Corpus Christi

202 F.3d 730 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jan 26, 2000

Qualified Immunity 7  In considering Gaines and Perez’s qualified immunity claim, we must remain cognizant of the fact that the “qualified . . . … But that dispute is not dispositive of the qualified immunity question at this moment.

B.R. v. W. Va. Dept. of Health and Human Resources, etc.

West Virginia Supreme Court · May 14, 2018

Accordingly, we agree with the circuit court’s finding that “[p]leading simple negligence, without a violation of a clearly established right, is insufficient to overcome qualified immunity.” … [the West Virginia Governmental Tort Claims and Insurance Reform Act], is entitled to qualified immunity from personal liability for official acts if the involved conduct did not violate clearly established

Langley v. Coughlin

709 F. Supp. 482 · District Court, S.D. New York · Mar 31, 1989

The grant of qualified immunity, then, depends upon whether there was a clearly established constitutional right of which the defendants knew or should have known at the time. … established at the time, and consequently, defendants are not entitled to summary judgment on their claim of qualified immunity.

DiPace v. Goord

308 F. Supp. 2d 274 · District Court, S.D. New York · Mar 3, 2004

On the second issue, plaintiffs argued that the proposed defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity because the right to adequate medical care for serious medical needs was clearly established and no reasonable jury … Second, even where such a constitutional right has been violated, the government employee is entitled to qualified immunity “ ‘if either (a) the defendant’s action did not violate clearly established law, or (b) it was objectively

Smith v. Township of Prairieville

194 F. Supp. 3d 658 · District Court, W.D. Michigan · Jul 11, 2016

Accordingly, no constitutional violation occurred, and the officers are entitled to qualified immunity for this claim. 2. The right was not clearly established. … Clearly Established Right Detective Gustafson also argues that he is entitled to qualified immunity “because it was not clearly established in this particular context that opéning a utensil drawer during a consensual search

Brandon Case v. Officer Beasley

Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Feb 17, 2026

If the right was not clearly established, then the Officers are entitled to immunity from liability. Id. … We found that the guard was entitled to qualified immunity because there was no clearly established right “to have a correctional officer look into the cell window while conducting a security check—given

Everitt v. DeMarco

704 F. Supp. 2d 122 · District Court, D. Connecticut · Mar 30, 2010

Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. … Qualified Immunity The individual Defendants assert that they are entitled to qualified immunity because their actions did not violate any clearly established constitutional right possessed by the Plaintiffs.

Riggs v. City of Pearland

177 F.R.D. 395 · District Court, S.D. Texas · Dec 17, 1997

The Fifth Circuit has also developed a two-step process for the examination of a claim of qualified immunity. The first inquiry is whether Plaintiff has alleged a violation of a clearly established constitutional right. … Again, the defense of qualified immunity is a bar to denial of medical care claims unless Plaintiffs demonstrate that Defendants’ conduct was objectively unreasonable in light of clearly established law existing at that time

Susan Esquillan, Defendant/third-Party v. The Health Care Insurance Company, Third-Party

222 F.3d 118 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jun 5, 2000

The district court then ruled that *120 even if the improper investigation did violate her constitutional rights, the defendants would nonetheless be entitled to qualified immunity because those rights were not clearly established … Thus, all of the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity for those acts. Furthermore, Ms.

Darryl Williams v. Paul Delo Bill Hartley Raphael Coad Greg Dunn Unknown Wells, Officer Norma Lavrrar Paul Stuart, Officer

49 F.3d 442 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Mar 7, 1995

“Generally, prison officials may rely on the defense of qualified immunity to protect them from liability for civil damages” if their conduct does not violate clearly established rights that would have been known to a reasonable … With respect to Williams’s claim for damages, the defendants in this case are entitled to summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity because they did not violate any clearly established Eighth Amendment right that

Tejada Batista v. Fuentes Agostini

247 F. Supp. 2d 73 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Feb 23, 2003

ANALYSIS Defendants generally argue that as a matter of law the case should be dismissed because they are shielded from liability pursuant to the doctrine of qualified immunity. … The doctrine of qualified immunity shields government officials from civil liability when they perform discretionary functions as long as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights

Roberts v. City of Shreveport

397 F.3d 287 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jan 13, 2005

established law.” … Louisiana applies qualified immunity principles to state constitu- tional law claims based on “[t]he same factors that compelled the United States Supreme Court to recognize a qualified good faith immunity for state officers

Linscott

District Court, W.D. Michigan · Oct 23, 2025

If the court can conclude either that no constitutional violation occurred or that the right was not clearly established, qualified immunity is warranted. … In response to Defendants’ qualified immunity argument, Plaintiff simply argues that Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity without citing any case that he claims shows Defendants violated clearly established

Elliot-Park v. Manglona

592 F.3d 1003 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jan 12, 2010

In a qualified immunity appeal, we normally look first to whether a constitutional violation was alleged and then to whether the defendants have qualified immunity as a matter of law. See Pearson v. … Law enforcement officials are entitled to qualified immunity even where their conduct violated a constitutional right unless that right was clearly established at the time of the violation. Saucier v.

Cohn v. New Paltz Central School District

363 F. Supp. 2d 421 · District Court, N.D. New York · Mar 30, 2005

Even if the right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation, however, a defendant will still be entitled to qualified immunity if the defendant’s conduct was objectively reasonable in light of clearly established … Defendant Derry is not entitled to qualified immunity for this claim. Case law has clearly established the “class of one” selective enforcement claim alleged in this action. Vill. of Willowbrook v.