Case law

Kenneth B. Krohn v. United States of America

742 F.2d 24 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Sep 28, 1984

Further, we are cognizant that qualified immunity differs from absolute immunity in that it is not so readily decided by motion; obviously, on some occasions officials possessing only qualified immunity must stand trial. … Briscoe established an absolute immunity from section 1983 suit for a police officer/witness.

Ryan Steinhoff v. Matthew Malovrh

Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Mar 24, 2026

The district court further concluded that Detective Kowalczyk was entitled to qualified immunity because Steinhoff did not identify clearly established law “prohibiting the use of a takedown under the dynamic cir- cumstances … As for the second prong of the qualified immunity inquiry, a constitutional right is clearly established if existing prece- dent “place[s] the statutory or constitutional question beyond debate.” Rivas-Villegas v.

Smith v. Tolley

960 F. Supp. 977 · District Court, E.D. Virginia · Apr 4, 1997

Baker, 825 F.2d 772, 774 (4th Cir.1987). 22 This is because “... there are two levels on which the immunity shield operates. First, the particular right must be clearly established in the law. … Therefore, Tolley is entitled to qualified immunity.

Mooneyham v. BOARD OF CHIROPRACTIC EX'RS

802 So. 2d 200 · Supreme Court of Alabama · May 11, 2001

The defendants argue that they are immune from suit as to this claim because, they say, Mooneyham has not alleged a violation of a clearly established constitutional right. We agree. … The threshold question for determining whether the doctrine of qualified immunity applies to a given constitutional claim is whether the plaintiff has alleged the violation of a clearly recognized constitutional right.

Liebe v. Norton

157 F.3d 574 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Oct 1, 1998

"Qualified immunity shields government officials from suit unless their conduct violated a clearly established constitutional or statutory right of which a reasonable person would have known." Yowell v. … To withstand the application of qualified immunity, a plaintiff must assert a violation of a constitutional or statutory right; that right must have been clearly established at the time of the violation; and, given the facts

Opinion No.

Arkansas Attorney General Reports · Jan 19, 2001

The city might further face liability under federal law, 42 U.S.C. § 1983 , for the violation of a clearly established statutory or constitutional right. … damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known."

McLin v. Twenty-First Judicial Dist

79 F.4th 411 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Aug 16, 2023

“Qualified immunity shields government officials from civil liability in their individual capacity so long as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … immunity analysis to address first.38 Our inquiry starts and ends with the clearly established prong, whether Chief Judge Morrison violated a clearly established constitutional right.

McCabe v. Caleel

739 F. Supp. 387 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Apr 30, 1990

action is a violation) violates a clearly established right. … Application of the qualified immunity concept to McCabe’s situation is simple: It has not been “clearly established” even now, let alone when Board’s members acted back in the late 1970s, that the fact (if it is a fact) of

Robbins v. Regents of University of California

25 Cal. Rptr. 3d 851 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 16, 2005

The trial court agreed that Suris was entitled to immunity, finding there was no evidence of a constitutional violation (and even if there was such a violation, it was not one of clearly established law), by virtue of LaVine … If no constitutional right would have been violated were the allegations established, there is no necessity for further inquires concerning qualified immunity.

Alston v. City of Detroit Police Officer

District Court, E.D. Michigan · Feb 15, 2024

conduct was ‘clearly established at the time.’” … They develop no argument as to the “clearly established” prong of the qualified immunity analysis.

James Carver, Administrator of the Estate of David Allen Carver, Deceased v. City of Cincinnati

474 F.3d 283 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jan 18, 2007

repeatedly without ever becoming clearly established. … Therefore, the law was not clearly established at the time of the alleged constitutional violation. III. CONCLUSION The Cincinnati police officers and EMTs are entitled to qualified immunity.

Montgomery v. Board of County Commissioners

637 F. Supp. 2d 934 · District Court, D. Colorado · Jun 5, 2009

Plaintiff further argues that “qualified immunity should be denied, because it is clearly established that a State may not discharge an employee on a basis that infringes that employee’s constitutionally-protected interest … Turning to the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis, I must determine whether Plaintiffs First Amendment right was clearly established at the time of the violation.

Schaefer v. Whitted

121 F. Supp. 3d 701 · District Court, W.D. Texas · Aug 5, 2015

“Qualified immunity protects public officials from suit unless their conduct violates a clearly established constitutional right.” Brumfield v. … However, to surmount qualified immunity, Plaintiff has the burden of demonstrating the Second Amendment right Officer Whitted is alleged to have violated is “clearly established” in the more “particularized sense,” such that

Niles v. Town of Wakefield

172 F. Supp. 3d 429 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Mar 24, 2016

Qualified Immunity ■ The First Circuit recently described the contours of the qualified immunity defense in detail as follows: The rules for granting qualified immunity are well established, “The doctrine of qualified immunity … ” subject to qualified immunity).

Lopez Quinonez v. PUERTO RICO NAT. GUARD

488 F. Supp. 2d 112 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · May 18, 2007

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY Qualified immunity shields public officials performing discretionary functions from civil damages, so long as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights, of which … We have used a three-prong analysis for evaluating qualified immunity claims.

Orraca Figueroa v. Torres Torres

288 F. Supp. 2d 176 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Oct 14, 2003

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY Defendants have moved for summary judgment, alleging that they are immune from suit under the doctrine of qualified immunity. … The general rule regarding qualified immunity is that government officials are immune from suit and liability when their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory authority or constitutional rights, which a reasonable

Burgess v. Fischer

890 F. Supp. 2d 845 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Sep 4, 2012

Qualified immunity protects state officials so long as “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Dickerson v. … Qualified immunity includes a two-step analysis: (1) considering the allegations in a light most favorable to the party injured, a constitutional right has been violated; and (2) whether that right was clearly established

Weaver v. Brenner

40 F.3d 527 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Oct 26, 1994

Clearly Established Right 23 The threshold issue in deciding whether a public official is entitled to qualified immunity is, as noted, whether the federal right was clearly established at the time the alleged violation occurred … the relevant rights to have been clearly established in 1989 is affirmed.

Jill S. N. Schaffer v. Bryan Beringer

842 F.3d 585 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Nov 21, 2016

-4-  Qualified immunity shields government officials from liability unless their conduct “violated a clearly established constitutional or statutory right of which a … Thus, the qualified immunity analysis is divided into two prongs: (1) whether the facts alleged establish a violation of a constitutional or statutory right; and (2) whether that right was clearly established at the time

Cleavinger v. Saxner

474 U.S. 193 · Supreme Court of the United States · Dec 10, 1985

To be sure, the line between absolute immunity and qualified immunity often is not an easy one to perceive and structure. … Petitioners state that they have not challenged — although they do not concede— the ruling that they violated “clearly established constitutional rights” of respondents. See Brief for Petitioners 7, n. 8.