Case law

Charfauros v. Board of Elections

5 N. Mar. I. 188 · Supreme Court of The Commonwealth of The Northern Mariana Islands · Nov 27, 1998

The members of the Board of Elections, acting in their individual capacities, asserted qualified immunity. 7 The court held that “the procedure for resolving voter challenges was not ‘clearly established’ at the time the … immunity because the process for disqualifying voters was not sufficiently or clearly established at the time the hearings were held.

Eckmann v. Board of Education of Hawthorn School District No. 17

636 F. Supp. 1214 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · May 19, 1986

Having at least arguably violated a clearly established constitutional right of plaintiff, the Board members lose the benefits of a qualified immunity — “immunity from suit” — and are forced to proceed to trial to test the … Qualified immunity protects government officials only in cases where it cannot be said that their actions violated rights clearly established at the time that they acted.

Rashied Goodwin v. Edward Conway

836 F.3d 321 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Sep 12, 2016

The detectives moved for summary judgment and asserted a qualified immunity defense. … Public officials are entitled to qualified immunity unless their conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right.17 Thus, to resolve a claim of qualified immunity, courts engage in a two-pronged inquiry: (1) whether

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).

Smiley v. Alabama Department of Transportation

778 F. Supp. 2d 1283 · District Court, M.D. Alabama · Mar 30, 2011

Saucier, 533 U.S. at 201, 121 S.Ct. 2151 . 14 Qualified immunity is applicable unless the officials conduct violated a clearly established federal right. Anderson v. … The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals has repeatedly held, in the qualified immunity context, that the right to be free from employment discrimination on the basis of race is clearly established. See, e.g., Rioux v.

Hemphill v. Hale

677 F.3d 799 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · May 10, 2012

The court later denied the motion, finding that Hale was not entitled to qualified immunity. … We review de novo the court’s determination that Hale is not entitled to qualified immunity, and we must decide whether the facts, construed in the light most favorable to Hemphill, established a constitutional violation,

Schwartz v. Pridy

874 F. Supp. 256 · District Court, E.D. Missouri · Jan 18, 1995

Government officials performing discretionary functions are provided with qualified immunity from a civil rights damages action if their challenged conduct does not “violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … The second prong of the qualified immunity analysis requires a determination of whether the constitutional right in question was “clearly established.” Id.

Montel v. City of Springfield

386 F. Supp. 3d 67 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 24, 2019

As this Court has but recently explained: *75 "Qualified immunity attaches when an official's conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known." … "The 'clearly established' analysis has two sub-parts." Id.

John S. Pleasant v. Larry Lovell, Larry Hyatt, Vernon Pixley, Kenneth Batson and Tim Fortune

876 F.2d 787 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jun 6, 1989

Defendant Fortune has qualified immunity for his technical consensual monitoring assistance; no clearly established first or fourth amendment right was violated. … After applying clearly established fourth amendment principles, we reject the contention that these defendants are entitled to qualified immunity.

Akron v. Pari

2019 Ohio 1083 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Mar 27, 2019

Pasco’s motion to dismiss because the unambiguous language of R.C. 2925.11(B)(2) limits immunity to minor drug possession offenses. … This Court concluded that the terms of R.C. 2925.11(B)(2) are unambiguous: The plain language of R.C. 2925.11(B)(2)(b) clearly provides qualified individuals with immunity for a minor drug possession offense

White v. Bibb County, Georgia

28 F. Supp. 2d 1374 · District Court, M.D. Georgia · Dec 7, 1998

To overcome qualified immunity, the plaintiffs must show (1) that Defendant God-bee violated their constitutional rights and (2) that those rights were clearly established at the time of the violation. … It is well settled in the Eleventh Circuit that “the law can be ‘clearly established’ for qualified immunity purposes only by decisions of the U.S.

Ramon Cortesluna v. Manuel Leon

979 F.3d 645 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Oct 27, 2020

Principles of Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity protects individual officers “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … Officers are entitled to qualified immunity in § 1983 actions unless they violate “clearly established” rights. Reichle v. Howards, 566 U.S. 658, 664 (2012).

Michael A. Bolden, Sr. v. Al Alston, Superintendent, Lincoln Correctional Facility, Nathaniel Hayes, Sergeant and Edward Kirkland, Sergeant

810 F.2d 353 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jan 28, 1987

Concluding that these rights had been clearly established by June 1982, the District Judge rejected appellants’ defense of official good faith immunity. … They contend that, even if they deprived Bolden of some due process rights, they did not contravene clearly established law and are therefore entitled to qualified immunity.

William J. Klein v. Lawrence Ryan and Frank Lombardo

847 F.2d 368 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · May 16, 1988

To overcome the defense of qualified immunity, the plaintiff must show that the officials violated “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. … Because qualified immunity analysis requires us to apply the law that was clearly established on May 12, 1983, see Zook v. Brown, 748 F.2d 1161, 1164 (7th Cir.1984), Gamer does not control this case. See Brown v.

Troy Thompson v. Ira Mercer

762 F.3d 433 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Aug 7, 2014

A public official is entitled to qualified immunity unless his conduct violates constitutional law that was “clearly established at the time of the defendant’s actions.” Freeman v. … We agree with the Thompsons that—at the very least—the relevant law is not so well developed as to clearly establish a violation here. And it is for that very reason that Mercer is entitled to qualified immunity.

Est of La'Mello Parker v. MS Dept

140 F.4th 226 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jun 6, 2025

Coon therefore cannot provide the clearly established law necessary to overcome qualified immunity. 58 Plaintiffs also cite Grandstaff, but it, too, is distinguishable. … established at the time of the incident—and qualified immunity applies.

Willie Bigford, Jr. v. Joe Max Taylor, Individually and as Sheriff of Galveston County, Texas

896 F.2d 972 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Mar 23, 1990

action generally turns on the ‘objective legal reasonableness’ of the action ... assessed in light of the legal rules that were ‘clearly established’ at the time it was taken.” … For the legal rules to be considered “clearly established,” the “contours” of the right alleged to have been violated “must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates

Robert Wilson v. David Spain, Mike Jones

209 F.3d 713 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Apr 5, 2000

from excessive force while detained by law enforcement officials and that the right has been clearly established. … Since the right to be free from excessive force in the context of an arrest has been clearly established for some time, other circuits have simply held that, in excessive-force eases, the qualified-immunity inquiry and the

Yorzinski v. Imbert

39 F. Supp. 3d 218 · District Court, D. Connecticut · Aug 7, 2014

The doctrine of qualified immunity shields “government officials performing discretionary functions” from civil damages liability as long as “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … The qualified immunity doctrine involves a two-step analysis: a plaintiff must plead “facts showing (1) that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was ‘clearly established’ at the

Meyer v. NILES TP., ILL.

477 F. Supp. 357 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jul 24, 1979

Dunne Is Not Protected by the Doctrine of Qualified Immunity. … To rebut the qualified immunity defense, the plaintiff must demonstrate that the constitutional right infringed was clearly established at the time of the action and the official “knew or reasonably should have known that