Case law

Robert Shawn Treff v. Kerry Galetka, Individually and as the Mailroom Supervisor at the Utah State Prison

74 F.3d 191 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jan 10, 1996

Galetka was entitled to qualified immunity because the law was not clearly established that prisoners had a First Amendment right to have their outgoing mail processed for delivery by the United States Postal Service, absent … Galetka’s qualified immunity defense, we first conclude that a prisoner’s constitutional right of access to the courts is clearly established. Nordgren v.

Garlanger v. Verbeke

223 F. Supp. 2d 596 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Sep 27, 2002

The doctrine of qualified immunity shields government officials “from suits seeking damages under § 1983 ‘insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … In determining whether a police officer is entitled to qualified immunity, both the existence of a clearly established right and the objective reasonableness of the officer’s actions are questions of law for the Court to

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.

Souza v. Pina

53 F.3d 423 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Apr 28, 1995

Otherwise, as the Supreme Court has observed, the generality at which courts identify the "clearly established" legal right threatens to "convert the rule of qualified immunity . . . … Because Souza has failed to establish that appellants' acts transgressed a clearly established right, we conclude that defendants may invoke the defense of qualified immunity.

Fernandez-Bravo v. Town of Manchester

711 F. App'x 5 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jan 16, 2017

“A police officer is entitled to qualified immunity if (1) his conduct does not violate a clearly established constitutional right, or (2) it was objectively reasonable for the officer to believe his conduct did not violate … a clearly established constitutional right.”

Cathy Burns v. Rick Reed

44 F.3d 524 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Feb 6, 1995

Qualified immunity protects public officials from civil suit based on their discretionary functions except where such conduct violated “clearly established” law. Sherman v. … The Supreme Court’s test for qualified immunity has been summarized by this Court as follows; In determining whether the right alleged to have been violated was “clearly established,” the constitutional right must be identified

Owens v. Colburn

860 F. Supp. 966 · District Court, N.D. New York · Jul 26, 1994

"Public officials are entitled to qualified immunity from liability for civil damages ... as long as their conduct does not violate a clearly established statutory or constitutional right.” Mozzochi v. … It also seems that once you have determined the need for the defense of [qualified immunity], ... the officer has acted unreasonably ... and has violated clearly established law.”) see also Graham, 490 U.S. at 399 n. 12,

Texas Department of Public Safety v. Tanner

928 S.W.2d 731 · Texas Court of Appeals, 4th District (San Antonio) · Aug 21, 1996

Like Hullum and DPS, we use the term "qualified immunity” when referring to the federal defense and "official immunity” when referring to the state defense. 3 . … Furthermore, Hullum did not move for summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity to the section 1983 claim.

Kraft v. Adams

248 Ga. App. 141 · Court of Appeals of Georgia · Jan 23, 2001

Once that is established, the burden then shifts to the plaintiff to establish that the defendant violated a clearly established statutory or constitutional right. … This requirement that plaintiff show a clearly established right is a strenuous one. . . .

Linlor v. Polson

263 F. Supp. 3d 613 · District Court, E.D. Virginia · Jul 11, 2017

In evaluating whether Defendant is entitled to qualified immunity, the Court must determine “(1) whether the plaintiff has established the violation of a constitutional right, and (2) whether that right was clearly established … of qualified immunity.”

Haynes v. Marshall

887 F.2d 700 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Oct 12, 1989

“[T]he right the official is alleged to have violated must have been ‘clearly established’ ” in a particularized sense, Anderson v. … They suggest, however, that there was no clearly established standard by which to measure whether they used excessive force, until 1986 when the Supreme Court announced its opinion in Whitley v.

Phelan v. Village of Lyons

531 F.3d 484 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jun 27, 2008

On appeal, Phelan maintains that Officer Dyas was not entitled to qualified immunity for the felony traffic stop. … Phelan construes this argument as an attempt by Officer Dyas to append a “third prong” to the qualified immunity inquiry: namely, whether the officer’s actions were reasonable even if they violated clearly established law

Carrubba v. Moskowitz

81 Conn. App. 382 · Connecticut Appellate Court · Feb 3, 2004

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 … Qualified immunity typically “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 . . . .”

Halperin v. Kissinger

578 F. Supp. 231 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 13, 1984

The doctrine *234 of qualified immunity now focuses on whether a government official’s conduct “violate[s] clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … judgment based on qualified immunity. .

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.

Savage v. County of Stafford, Va.

754 F. Supp. 2d 809 · District Court, E.D. Virginia · Nov 16, 2010

As noted above, in order to overcome an officer’s qualified immunity, the federal right alleged to have been violated must be clearly established at the time of the acts complained of such that an objectively reasonable official … It cannot be said that Sturdivant violated a clearly established federal right by arresting Savage.

Richard Lemarbe v. Jerome J. Wisneski, Sharon Fairbanks Dennis Straub

266 F.3d 429 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Sep 19, 2001

such violated right was clearly established. … Clearly Established Right We also conclude that Le-Marbe has successfully proven that the allegedly violated right was clearly established.

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.

McGRATH v. GILLIS

44 F.3d 567 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Jan 6, 1995

"Unless the plaintiff's allegations state a claim of violation of clearly established law, a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal before the commencement of discovery." … Id. 11 In order to defeat a claim of qualified immunity, a plaintiff must allege a cognizable violation of a constitutional right clearly established at the time of the alleged misconduct.

Wheeler v. City of Lansing

677 F. Supp. 2d 965 · District Court, W.D. Michigan · Jan 6, 2010

“Ordinarily, a Supreme Court or Sixth Circuit [Court of Appeals] decision on point is necessary” to clearly establish the right in the relevant context and defeat qualified immunity. Reynolds v. … On qualified immunity analysis, this court’s duty is to ascertain what our Circuit’s clearly established law was on the date of the challenged search.