Case law

Arizmendi-Corales v. Javier Rivera

176 F. Supp. 2d 114 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Oct 19, 2001

Qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions from civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate a clearly established statutory or constitutional right which should have been … If no violation of a clearly established constitutional right is found, then the analysis halts because “there is qualified immunity.” Aponte Matos v. Toledo Davila, 135 F.3d 182, 187 (1st Cir.1998).

Powell v. Barrett

376 F. Supp. 2d 1340 · District Court, N.D. Georgia · Jul 5, 2005

established” test for qualified immunity) to sustain their liability under an entrustment-based theory. … of qualified immunity.

Scott Drewry v. William Brenner, Individually, and In His Official Capacity as Chief of Police; and the Town of Greybull

2025 WY 121 · Wyoming Supreme Court · Nov 6, 2025

The doctrine of qualified immunity precludes Mr. … We conclude Chief Brenner has established that he acted in good faith for the purposes of qualified immunity. [¶26] Differences of opinion are similarly immaterial when applying the reasonableness element.

James King v. United States

917 F.3d 409 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Feb 25, 2019

The doctrine of qualified immunity shields government officials "from liability for civil damages if their actions did not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would … If a jury were to credit Plaintiff's testimony, then neither Defendant is entitled to qualified immunity because any reasonable officer would have known, based on clearly established law, that applying force-tackling Plaintiff

Hamid Harris v. City of Newark (085028) (Essex County & Statewide)

Supreme Court of New Jersey · Mar 30, 2022

Qualified immunity operates to shield government officials performing discretionary functions generally from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … established.’”

Troy Baker, and Glenn Snader, as Father and Next Friend of Jesse Snader v. City of Hamilton, Ohio, and Eric Taylor

471 F.3d 601 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Dec 18, 2006

If the plaintiff establishes that a constitutional violation occurred, a court must next consider “whether the right was clearly established.” Id. … When a defendant raises a defense of qualified immunity, the plaintiff bears the burden of demonstrating that the defendant is not entitled to qualified immunity. Silberstein v.

Justin Schimandle v. DeKalb County Sheriff's Office

114 F.4th 648 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Aug 28, 2024

A Qualified immunity requires the court to determine: (1) whether the record evidences the violation of a federal statu- tory or constitutional right; and if so (2) whether the right violated was clearly established at … “There is no question that [Schimandle’s] constitutional right to be free from arrest without probable cause was clearly established at the time of the incident.”

Louis Bianchi v. Thomas McQueen

818 F.3d 309 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Mar 29, 2016

Qualified Immunity Qualified-immunity doctrine holds that “government of- ficials are not subject to damages liability for the perfor- mance of their discretionary functions when ‘their conduct does not violate clearly … was clearly established at the time and under the circumstances presented.”

Crigger v. McIntosh

254 F. Supp. 3d 891 · District Court, E.D. Kentucky · Jun 8, 2017

Generally, a government official performing discretionary functions is entitled to qualified immunity in his individual capacity and is shielded from civil suit if his conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … In determining whether qualified immunity applies, the Court must determine: (i) whether the facts as alleged establish that the officer’s conduct violated a constitutional right and (ii) whether that right was clearly established

Greenberg v. Kmetko

840 F.2d 467 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Mar 9, 1988

The defendants submit on appeal that they should be shielded from liability by qualified immunity. … A fortiori, constitutional protection for such expressions was not clearly established in 1976.

Aaron Tobey v. Terri Jones

706 F.3d 379 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Jan 25, 2013

Tobey did not allege a facially valid First Amendment claim and even if he did, qualified immunity bars such a claim because they did not violate a clearly established constitutional right. II. … occurred, and two, whether the right violated was clearly established.

Dalton v. Town of Silver City

2 F.4th 1300 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jun 28, 2021

Bascom’s clearly established right to equal protection of the law in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The Officers moved for summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity. … The Officers filed this interlocutory appeal from that denial of qualified immunity, alleging it was not clearly established that their conduct violated Ms.

Marquez v. Gutierrez

322 F.3d 689 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Mar 6, 2003

The qualified immunity inquiry has two parts: “(1) Was the law governing the state official’s conduct clearly established? (2) Under that law could a reasonable state official have believed his conduct was lawful?” … Accordingly, Gutierrez is entitled to qualified immunity. REVERSED.

Rome v. Romero

225 F.R.D. 640 · District Court, D. Colorado · Nov 22, 2004

Government officials are entitled to qualified immunity from liability for civil damages under § 1983 when their “conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … Even where a qualified immunity defense is asserted, some limited discovery is still permitted.

Raymond E. Humphrey v. Duane M. Mabry Kevin George and Kevin Wheeler

482 F.3d 840 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 2, 2007

Qualified Immunity The defense of qualified immunity shields government officials from “liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … Accordingly, we move to the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis. 2. Were the rights “clearly established”?

Hertog v. City of Seattle

138 Wash. 2d 265 · Washington Supreme Court · Jun 24, 1999

State, 127 Wn.2d 434 , 899 P.2d 1270 (1995), that the qualified personal immunity for parole officers recognized in Taggart does not extend to the State. … If so, Hoover would enjoy qualified personal immunity but the City would not.

Jody Lombardo v. City of St. Louis

956 F.3d 1009 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Apr 20, 2020

Having concluded that the facts presented do not make out a violation of Gilbert’s constitutional rights, we need not evaluate the clearly established prong of the qualified immunity analysis. See Greenman v. … Jessen, 787 F.3d 882, 887 & n.10 (8th Cir. 2015) (affirming the district court’s grant of qualified immunity based on the constitutional violation prong even though the district court only reached the clearly established

State v. Sieminski

92 N.E.3d 1252 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jun 26, 2017

“A statute must clearly proclaim its own retroactivity to overcome the presumption of prospective application. Retroactivity is not to be inferred.” State v. … Sieminski’s motion to dismiss because she is not a qualified individual pursuant to R.C. 2925.11(B)(2)(a)(viii), and therefore not eligible for immunity under R.C. 2925.11(B)(2)(b).

Transit Authority of River City v. Bibelhauser

432 S.W.3d 171 · Court of Appeals of Kentucky · Sep 27, 2013

Governmental immunity is granted to agencies that have been established by an immune entity and that perform a “ ‘function integral to state government.’ ” Comair, Inc. v. … First, the court is to examine the origin, or “parent,” of the entity to determine if the entity is an agency (or alter ego) of a clearly immune parent. Id.

Kapinski v. City of Albuquerque

District Court, D. New Mexico · Aug 19, 2019

Instead, “[i]n the context of a qualified immunity defense on an unlawful search or arrest claim, we ascertain whether a defendant violated clearly established law by asking whether there was ‘arguable probable cause’ … Even if Plaintiff could get past the first prong of qualified immunity by establishing a constitutional violation, he would still lose on the second prong.