Case law

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

Hogan ex rel. J.H. v. County of Lewis

929 F. Supp. 2d 130 · District Court, N.D. New York · Mar 8, 2013

The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials acting in their capacity from liability for civil damages as long as their conduct does not “violate clearly-established rights of which an objectively reasonable … The party invoking qualified immunity bears the burden of offering proof that it was objectively reasonable for her to believe that her actions did not violate a clearly established right and that she is entitled to qualified

Ciolino v. Eastman

128 F. Supp. 3d 366 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Sep 3, 2015

Second Prong: Clearly Established Right The disputes of fact discussed above also preclude the Court from finding that the constitutional rights allegedly violated were not “clearly established,” such that Defendants would … be entitled to qualified immunity on the second prong of the test.

Charles Ivey v. Pat Hamlin

Court of Appeals of Tennessee · Mar 18, 2002

violate the clearly established constitutional or statutory rights of which a reasonable person would have known. … When a defendant asserts a qualified immunity defense in a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action, the burden is on the plaintiff to show that the rights he or she is asserting have been clearly established. Perkins v.

Margaret Byers v. Gordon Painter

Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Apr 17, 2026

The burden of establishing qualified immunity rests on the party seeking the shield of that immunity. Id. … “That means that we may grant qualified immunity [solely] on the ground that the purported right was not clearly established[.]” Id.

Heggs v. Grant

73 F.3d 317 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jan 22, 1996

On the appeal of a nonfinal order denying qualified immunity, we have jurisdiction under the collateral order doctrine to decide whether the conduct complained of violated "clearly established statutory or … No clearly established law required him to take further measures to protect her.

Johnnie Savory v. Allen Andrews

Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Aug 14, 2026

The officers in this case are entitled to qualified immunity only if their interrogation techniques did not violate Savory’s clearly established right to due process. Rivas-Villegas v. … Regardless, focusing on this difference is too myopic an approach given that Savory need only present similar—not identical—cases to satisfy qualified immunity’s “clearly established” requirement.

Curley v. Klem

499 F.3d 199 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Aug 24, 2007

step is whether the right that was violated was clearly established, or, in other words, “whether it would be clear to a reasonable officer that his conduct was unlawful in the situation he confronted.” … The District Court clearly saw that problem in this case.

Hatheway v. Thies

335 F.3d 1199 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jul 18, 2003

In arguing that they are entitled to qualified immunity, the detectives contend that (1) the law was not clearly established as to whether Mr. … Denial of Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity is available to government officials when “their -11- conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional

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.

Christopher Lee Prosser v. Davis L. Ross, Co I

70 F.3d 1005 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Dec 1, 1995

Ross is entitled to qualified immunity unless he violated Prosser’s “clearly established” constitutional rights. Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 , 102 S.Ct. 2727, 2738 , 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982); Johnson v. … Ross is therefore entitled to qualified immunity as a matter of law.

Trulock v. Freeh

275 F.3d 391 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Dec 28, 2001

The district court granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss, holding that the Defendants, having violated no clearly established law, were entitled to qualified immunity. … Qualified immunity shields government officials from civil liability “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”

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.

Harris v. Board of Education

105 F.3d 591 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jan 23, 1997

Public officials are entitled to qualified immunity from "liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would … him his salary and benefits violated clearly established law.

Donna Lowe v. Town of Fairland, Oklahoma Beverly Hill Don Jones Shirley Mangold and Loretta Vinyard

143 F.3d 1378 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · May 14, 1998

Consequently, when the qualified immunity defense is raised, the defendant should be spared the burden of proceeding with the litigation until the plaintiff establishes that the defendant’s alleged actions violated clearly … established law.

Odom v. Wayne County

482 Mich. 459 · Michigan Supreme Court · Dec 30, 2008

Contrary to defendant’s position, Ross clearly provides governmental employees qualified immunity from intentional-tort liability at common law. … Thus, the proponent of individual immunity must establish that he acted without malice.

Thomas v. Town of Salisbury

277 F. Supp. 3d 161 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Sep 30, 2017

right that the official has violated was clearly established at the time of the violation.” … Justice Thompson argued that the majority had construed “the clearly-established-right prong” of the qualified immunity analysis too narrowly, and required that the precedent be too directly on point before an official could

Wiley v. Doory

14 F.3d 993 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Jan 27, 1994

The only issue before this Court is whether Doory is entitled to qualified immunity. 6 4 * Qualified immunity shields a governmental official from liability for civil monetary damages if the officer's "conduct does not violate … Thus, appellant Doory is entitled to qualified immunity.

Joseph E. Birrell v. Robert Brown, Director, Michigan Dept. Of Corrections

867 F.2d 956 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Feb 13, 1989

Upon reference, the magistrate reviewed the plaintiff’s allegations and reported in a twenty page recommendation that the defendants could not establish qualified immunity to insulate themselves under the circumstances. … A prison official’s motion for summary judgment based on qualified immunity should be denied only when he acts intentionally, or when his alleged actions violate clearly established rights of which a reasonable person would

White v. Gurnon

67 Mass. App. Ct. 622 · Massachusetts Appeals Court · Oct 30, 2006

Was the right clearly established!? … The qualified immunity doctrine shields government officials from monetary liability in their personal capacity provided the official’s conduct did not violate an individual’s rights that were “clearly established” under