Case law

Edwards v. Gilbert

867 F.2d 1271 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Feb 28, 1989

Once a defendant advances a defense of qualified immunity, he is entitled to summary judgment unless “the legal norms allegedly violated by the defendant were clearly established at the time of the challenged actions_” Mitchell … established” for purposes of qualified immunity at the time of Molbert’s death.

Dennis R. Cookish v. Commissioner Ronald Powell

945 F.2d 441 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Sep 26, 1991

“Qualified immunity operates to shield government officials exercising discretionary powers ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights … A “clearly established” right in the qualified immunity context has a *443 particularized cast. Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 640 , 107 S.Ct. 3034, 3039 , 97 L.Ed.2d 523 (1987).

Sanders v. City of Dothan

671 F. Supp. 2d 1263 · District Court, M.D. Alabama · Nov 30, 2009

Under the “clearly established” prong of the qualified-immunity analysis, police officers are entitled to immunity from suit “unless the law pre-existing the [officerj’s supposedly wrongful act was already established to … immunity because that right was not clearly established.

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.

Cudd v. Aldrich

982 F. Supp. 463 · District Court, S.D. Texas · Nov 7, 1997

The next inquiry for qualified immunity purposes is whether Cudd’s First Amendment right to be free from political patronage dismissal was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation. … Second, and more importantly, the inquiry into qualified immunity is an objective one: the Court must determine what a reasonable public official would have understood as clearly established law.

Matthew Locke v. County of Hubbard

Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Sep 17, 2025

While I disagree with the court’s constitutional analysis, I need not resolve that inquiry as the case can be easily resolved under the clearly established prong of the qualified immunity analysis. See Pearson v. … This does not constitute a violation of a clearly established right; therefore, the officers are entitled to qualified immunity.

Lombard v. Edward J. Peters, Jr., P.C.

252 Conn. 623 · Supreme Court of Connecticut · Apr 4, 2000

Peters, Jr., P.C., 1 to strike the first count of the plaintiffs’ complaint on the ground of qualified immunity. … This appeal followed. 3 “In an appeal from a judgment granting a motion to strike, we operate in accordance with well established rules.

Brown v. City of Golden Valley

534 F. Supp. 2d 984 · District Court, D. Minnesota · Feb 14, 2008

Zarrett argues that qualified immunity shields him from liability. … “Qualified immunity protects a government official from liability in a section 1983 action unless the official’s conduct violated a clearly established constitutional or statutory right of which a reasonable person would

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

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?" … Further, Marquez argues that a prison official cannot act maliciously and sadistically while, at the same time, reasonably believing that his actions conform to clearly established law.

Machelle Pearson v. MDOC

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Mar 26, 2026

It also held that they could seek damages because the complaint alleged a violation of clearly established law to overcome any qualified-immunity defense. See id. at *5–6. … The Inmates also contend that they may rely on the clearly established “right to safe and sanitary conditions” to overcome qualified immunity. Appellees’ Br. 27.

Facey v. Dickhaut

91 F. Supp. 3d 12 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Sep 30, 2014

a violation of clearly established law. … The second prong of the qualified immunity analysis requires that the right have been clearly established at the time that it was allegedly violated. See Feliciano-Hernandez, 663 F.3d at 532 .

Muszik v. Town of Redington Shores, Florida

District Court, M.D. Florida · May 20, 2024

Callahan, 55 U.S. 223, 236 (2009) (courts considering qualified immunity are permitted to address whether a constitutional right is clearly established before determining whether it was violated). … A plaintiff seeking to meet her burden under the second step of the qualified immunity analysis can demonstrate that a right or law was clearly established in three ways. See, e.g., Loftus v.

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.

McDonald v. Kempthorne

831 F. Supp. 2d 313 · District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 23, 2011

“The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials ‘from [personal] liability for civil damages insofar as  - 21 - their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … and whether that right was clearly established.

Rabinovitz v. City of L. A.

287 F. Supp. 3d 933 · District Court, C.D. California · Mar 2, 2018

Qualified immunity "shields officials from civil liability so long as their conduct 'does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.' " Mullenix v. … Qualified Immunity Defendants' qualified immunity defense fails to bar the First Amendment claim.

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

Torres v. Runyon

80 F. App'x 594 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Nov 6, 2003

If the official violated a constitutional right, he or she nonetheless may be entitled to qualified immunity if the right was not clearly established such that a reasonable official “would understand that what he is doing … The next prong of the qualified immunity analysis is “ ‘a two-part inquiry: (1) Was the law governing the state official’s conduct clearly established?

Louisiana Farms v. LA. Dept. of Wildlife

685 So. 2d 1086 · Louisiana Court of Appeal · Oct 9, 1996

Qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … Applying the foregoing principles to our qualified immunity analysis, the first question becomes whether the DWF officers' conduct in constructively seizing the Bartmess' entire farming operation violated "clearly established

Van De Yacht v. the City of Wausau

661 F. Supp. 2d 1026 · District Court, W.D. Wisconsin · Oct 13, 2009

on the ground of qualified immunity. … one is enough to establish the defense of qualified immunity.