Case law

Williams v. CITY OF FRANKLIN, TENN.

586 F. Supp. 2d 890 · District Court, M.D. Tennessee · Nov 18, 2008

If the plaintiff has established a violation of a constitutional right, the second step in the qualified immunity analysis is to determine whether the violated right was clearly established. Id. … was clearly established); Boger v.

North

District Court, S.D. California · Nov 17, 2025

App’x 490, 493 (9th 4 Cir. 2017) (internal quotation marks omitted) (concluding defendants were entitled to 5 qualified immunity because it was not clearly established that depriving prisoner of a 6 mattress or bed … Mandeville, 706 F.3d 7 1052, 1060 (9th Cir. 2013) (finding defendants entitled to qualified immunity because it 8 was not clearly established that mattress deprivation for seven days violated Eighth 9 Amendment

Krzyske v. Commissioner

548 F. Supp. 101 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Sep 26, 1982

Even if the Commissioner is entitled to only a qualified immunity, however, the test established in Harlow v. Fitzgerald protects the defendant in this action. … In Harlow the Supreme Court said that governmental officials performing discretionary functions are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate “clearly established” statutory or constitutional

Estate of Armstrong Ex Rel. Armstrong v. Village of Pinehurst

810 F.3d 892 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Jan 11, 2016

to qualified immunity.” … A “qualified immunity analysis,” therefore, “typically involves two inquiries: (1) whether the plaintiff has established the violation of a constitutional right, and (2) whether that right was clearly established at the time

Robert Trammell v. David Thompson

335 F. App'x 835 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jun 18, 2009

“Qualified immunity protects government officials performing discretionary functions ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of … claim of qualified immunity.

Freeman v. Fallin

254 F. Supp. 2d 52 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 24, 2003

Qualified immunity “shield[s officials] from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … Britton, 523 U.S. 574, 591 , 118 S.Ct. 1584 , 140 L.Ed.2d 759 (1998) (stating that “[i]f the law was clearly established, the immunity defense ordinarily should fail, since a reasonably competent public official should know

State v. Jett

316 Md. 248 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · May 31, 1989

Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511 , 105 S.Ct. 2806, 2815-17 , 86 L.Ed.2d 411 (1985) (Attorney General qualified immunity); Nixon v. … Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511 , 105 S.Ct. 2806 , 86 L.Ed.2d 411 (1985) (denial of a claim of qualified immunity, to the extent it turns on an issue of law); Nixon v.

Fuerschbach v. Southwest Airlines Co.

439 F.3d 1197 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Feb 28, 2006

specific,” and therefore our rejection of qualified immunity in that case was “based on clearly and narrowly articulated Fourth Amendment principles.” … The district court granted qualified immunity to the officers on both claims.

Griess v. Colorado

841 F.2d 1042 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Mar 15, 1988

The Supreme Court has indicated that when the issue with which we are concerned, i.e,, whether constitutional rights allegedly violated were “clearly established” for purposes of qualified immunity under Harlow v. … Because the test for qualified immunity turns on whether a right is clearly established, courts should ordinarily determine the existence and character of the underlying constitutional violation(s) before proceeding to the

Herrera v. Santa Fe Public Schools

956 F. Supp. 2d 1191 · District Court, D. New Mexico · Jun 28, 2013

Clearly Established Rights in the Qualified Immunity Analysis. … The Supreme Court, faced with the clearly established prong of Wilson’s qualified immunity, recognized that “courts considering qualified immunity for strip searches” have found it “impossible to establish clearly the contours

Jules Gassner v. City of Garland, Texas, M.L. Bates

864 F.2d 394 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Mar 7, 1989

The court defined this form of qualified immunity as follows: [Government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly … Hence, the Court offered the following refinement of the Harlow qualified immunity test: [O]ur cases establish that the right the official is alleged to have violated must have been ‘clearly established’ in a more particularized

Shekleton v. Eichenberger

677 F.3d 361 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · May 3, 2012

Qualified immunity protects officers from liability in a section 1983 case “unless the official’s conduct violates a clearly established constitutional or statutory right of which a reasonable person would have known.” … clearly established constitutional violation.

Monica L. Moore v. Gwinnett County, and Xyz Company, and John Doe, Jointly and Severally, J.O. Meadows

967 F.2d 1495 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 6, 1992

According to this doctrine, “public officials performing discretionary functions enjoy qualified [or good faith] immunity from civil damages liability ‘insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … On the basis of that analysis, we disagree with the district court’s conclusion and find that qualified immunity clearly attaches to Officer Meadows’s challenged conduct. I.

Durham v. Rapp

64 F. Supp. 3d 740 · District Court, D. Maryland · Dec 9, 2014

Qualified immunity turns on two inquiries: (1) “whether the facts that a plaintiff has alleged ... or shown ... make out a violation of ■ a constitutional right,” and (2) “whether the right at issue was ‘clearly established … A defendant is entitled to qualified immunity “unless the official’s conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right.” Id.

Frank Barrett v. Nancy I. Harrington, A/K/A Penny Harrington

130 F.3d 246 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Nov 20, 1997

To survive Defendant’s assertion of qualified immunity, Barrett must show that, under § 1983, Harrington’s conduct: (1) violates Barrett’s clearly established constitutional rights, (2) of which a reasonable person would … See discussion supra, concerning a judge’s absolute immunity to report possible illegal conduct. 29 .As the District Court noted, there are a number of ways a public official can establish a defense of qualified immunity.

ELENE H. v. County of Los Angeles

220 Cal. App. 3d 1445 · California Court of Appeal · May 2, 1990

Defendants contend that their conduct was totally immunized and, if not totally immunized, was within the range of qualified immunity for law enforcement officers recognized by federal law. (Malley v. … Clearly the behavior of a law enforcement officer which is grossly incompetent or demonstrates knowing disregard for established legal rights is not protected by qualified immunity. *1454 In the case at bench, the defendants

Savage v. State

127 Wash. 2d 434 · Washington Supreme Court · Aug 17, 1995

I Qualified Personal Immunity In Taggart v. State, 118 Wn.2d 195 , 822 P.2d 243 (1992), we held that parole officers have qualified immunity for allegedly negligent supervision of parolees who harm third parties. … agent enjoys qualified personal immunity.

Prowisor v. Bon-Ton, Inc.

426 F. Supp. 2d 165 · District Court, S.D. New York · Apr 6, 2006

Qualified Immunity Even assuming that probable cause was not established, Officer Roth is entitled to qualified immunity. … Qualified immunity can be established in three ways: (1) if defendant’s acts did not violate a clearly established constitutional right; (2) if it remains unclear as to whether an exception permitted such acts; and (3) if

Forsyth v. Kleindienst

729 F.2d 267 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Mar 8, 1984

The district court reasoned that because Mitchell failed to establish an objective basis for believing his action to be lawful at the time he authorized the wiretaps in question, the clearly established law made his warrantless … Appealability of Summary Denial of Qualified Immunity Defendant Mitchell appeals also the district court’s summary denial of his qualified immunity claim.

Young v. Keohane

809 F. Supp. 1185 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 13, 1992

In some cases, the qualified immunity issue may also turn on “the complementary question whether defendant had a clearly established duty towards plaintiff.” Ryan v. … What is “clearly established” law for qualified immunity purposes, however, commands only some, “not precise factual correspondence between relevant precedents and the conduct at issue.” Ryan, 860 F.2d at 1208 .