Case law

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

Brian Berry v. Travis Leslie

767 F.3d 1144 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Sep 16, 2014

But Leslie is not being denied qualified immunity for violations of clearly established constitutional rights that he did not commit or that were not pursuant to a *1157 policy that he approved. … established rights and requires the denial of qualified immunity.

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.

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

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.

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. . . .

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.”

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.

Human Rights Defense Center, Inc. v. Uttecht

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Dec 11, 2025

Defendants were not entitled to qualified immunity because HRDC’s asserted right against delayed delivery in this context was clearly established. … Defendants were entitled to qualified immunity because HRDC’s due process right to be notified of the Committee’s decision was not clearly established.

Clouse Ex Rel. Clouse v. State

199 Ariz. 196 · Arizona Supreme Court · Feb 1, 2001

We also invited the legislature to address those areas that might need the protection of absolute immunity or qualified immunity. … ’s failure to re *204 tain an arrested person in custody involves clearly governmental activity.

Morris v. Dearborne

181 F.3d 657 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jul 16, 1999

Dearborne contends that she is entitled to qualified immunity because her actions did not violate clearly established law and that her actions were objectively reasonable under the circumstances. … and the Supreme Court, a defendant’s defense of qualified immunity, based on a claim that the right to family integrity was not clearly established, will fail.

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. .

Russell v. Scott

Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Mar 19, 2026

The District Court concluded that Scott had not established his entitlement to qualified immunity because a reasonable jury could conclude that his actions violated Russell’s clearly established Fourteenth Amendment rights … Clearly Established Finally, we turn to the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis: whether it was clearly established at the time of the incident that Scott’s conduct 12 We further note that,

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 . . . .”

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

York v. Purkey

14 F. App'x 628 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 20, 2001

Therefore, in deciding whether law was clearly established for the purpose of qualified immunity, we look for decisions that involve positions with the same or similar statutory duties. Id. In McCloud v. … The Court wrote: If the law was clearly established, the [qualified] immunity defense ordinarily should fail, since a reasonably competent public official should know the law governing his conduct.

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.

Rodriguez-Cortes v. Superintendencia del Capitolio

236 F. Supp. 3d 498 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Feb 17, 2017

(2), if so, whether that right was clearly established at the time of defendant’s violation.” … Defendants fail to satisfy either part of the qualified immunity test. Accordingly, the Court finds that the defense of qualified immunity does not apply to defendant Vazquez.

Colon-Andino v. Toledo-Davila

634 F. Supp. 2d 220 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Jul 13, 2009

“In administering the [Supreme] Court’s test, this circuit has tended to list separately the two sub-parts of the ‘clearly established’ prong along with the first prong and, as a result, has articulated the qualified immunity … Defendants offer what is clearly a template ("boiler plate”) summary of the law on qualified immunity that is outdated- and fails to apply the qualified immunity analysis to the facts of this case adequately.

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.