Case law

Robert W. Clark v. Joseph G. Brown

861 F.2d 66 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Nov 4, 1988

Indeed it is not clearly established under current law. … They are not a bar to qualified immunity. Brown is entitled to qualified immunity.

Soares v. State of Connecticut

8 F.3d 917 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Nov 2, 1993

Accordingly, Konow is entitled to summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity. II. … that their conduct was necessarily "objectively reasonable," they can prevail on their qualified immunity defense if they can show that the rights plaintiff claims to have been violated were not "clearly established."

Hixon v. Durbin

560 F. Supp. 654 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 31, 1983

Unfortunately, in announcing the new test for qualified immunity in Harlow , the Supreme Court expressly declined to define what criteria a rule of law would have to meet in order to be deemed “clearly established.” … Presumably, every principle of law which is essential to the conclusion that the defendant violated plaintiff’s rights must be “clearly established” for the qualified immunity defense to fail.

Opinion No. (1991)

Oklahoma Attorney General Reports · May 6, 1991

Grubbs, 841 F.2d 1512 (10th Cir. 1988) (officials qualifiedly immune from liability under 42 U.S.C.A. 1983 if their conduct does not violate clearly established rights of which a reasonable person would have known). ¶ 13 … applicable decisions of the United States Supreme Court, and a public official's enforcement of such a statute may well deprive that official of qualified immunity from liability under 42 U.S.C.A. 1983 .

Cowles v. Peterson

344 F. Supp. 2d 472 · District Court, E.D. Virginia · Oct 21, 2004

Qualified immunity provides that “government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded *478 from liability for civil damages 'insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … Qualified immunity is an affirmative defense, and must be plead by the respondent. See Gomez v.

Bobby Bland v. B. Roberts

730 F.3d 368 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Sep 18, 2013

In determining whether a defendant is entitled to qualified immunity, a court must decide (1) whether the defendant has violated a constitutional .right of the plaintiff and (2) whether that right was clearly established … Rather, in consider *394 ing whether constitutional rights were clearly established for qualified-immunity purposes, we view the issue from “the layman’s perspective,” Ross v.

Elizabeth Carley v. Romeo Aranas

103 F.4th 653 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jun 3, 2024

Aranas was entitled to qualified immunity because no clearly established law rendered the HCV policies unconstitutional at the time of the alleged violation. … immunity because they violated no clearly established law”).

95 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 8958, 95 Daily Journal D.A.R. 15,643 Dawud Halisi Malik, A/K/A David W. Riggins v. Neal Brown, and Carol L. Moses, Assoc. Supt. Kathy Kaatz, C.U.S. Sue Kinsinger, C.P.M. Mark Crewson, C.U.S. Virginia Carter, Sgt. Joan Smith, Mail Rm. Personnel John Tice, Sgt. Dick Frank, Sgt. Nancy Hill, Corr. Officer Monica Sukert, Corr. Officer Richard Rooney, Corr. Officer John Fritzpatrick, Sgt. Marie Norman, Corr. Officer S. Giesenoff, C/o Cbcc Schouviller, Lt., Hearing Officer Chase Riveland

71 F.3d 724 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Nov 28, 1995

Qualified immunity requires "a two-part analysis: 1) Was the law governing the official's conduct clearly established? 2) Under that law, could a reasonable officer have believed the conduct was lawful?" Act Up! … "[I]n the absence of binding precedent, a court should look to whatever decisional law is available to ascertain whether the law is clearly established" for qualified immunity purposes, Capoeman v.

Carol Walker v. Brian Coffey

905 F.3d 138 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Sep 20, 2018

The District Court granted Appellees’ motion to dismiss, concluding that they were entitled to qualified immunity because Walker did not have a clearly established right to privacy in the content of her work emails. … “Qualified immunity shields government officials from civil damages liability unless the official violated a statutory or constitutional right that was clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct.” 8 Qualified

Stephan Lane v. Riley Kummet

Court of Appeals of Wisconsin · Jan 13, 2026

“The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … Wodnicki, 123 F.3d 1005, 1008 (7th Cir. 1997) (explaining that an official is entitled to qualified immunity “if, at the time he acted, he reasonably could have determined that his actions did not violate clearly established

Matusick v. Erie County Water Authority

757 F.3d 31 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Feb 25, 2014

Clearly Established. … established — the defendants have never argued this basis for qualified immunity.

Jerry M. Stanley v. City of Dalton, Georgia

219 F.3d 1280 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jul 26, 2000

11 interlocutory appeal of the denial of qualified immunity where the disputed issue is whether the official’s conduct violated clearly established law. … immunity analysis of whether the defendant’s conduct violated clearly established law.”

Amy Hughes v. Andrew Kisela

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jun 27, 2017

As the Supreme Court has explained, the qualified immunity analysis has two prongs: In order to deny qualified immunity, the facts must establish a violation of a constitutional right, and that right must have been “clearly … III The panel opinion directly contravenes the qualified immunity principles relevant to the “clearly established” inquiry.

Brent James Nash v. Austin Bryce

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Sep 30, 2025

Clearly Established Right To overcome the defendants’ qualified immunity defense, Nash ordinarily would need to show that it was “clearly established” in April 2021 that the defendants’ use of force would violate … Op. 29–30 (holding that the officers “forfeited the clearly established prong of their qualified immunity defense by failing to meaningfully contest the issue”).

Mariano v. Borough of Dickson City

40 F. Supp. 3d 411 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 22, 2014

“A right is clearly established for qualified immunity purposes where its contours are sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that right.” Id. … They do not indicate what exactly they believe is not “clearly established” in law such that qualified immunity is appropriate, but simply assert that the doctrine applies.

Shain v. Ellison

273 F.3d 56 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Oct 19, 2001

In a published opinion dated June 1, 1999, Judge Wexler granted Shain partial summary judgment establishing that the strip search policy was unconstitutional and that Jablonsky was not entitled to qualified immunity. … We also found in Wachtler that the individual defendants were entitled to qualified immunity because the law did not clearly establish whether Wachtler’s conduct was sufficient to trigger a reasonable suspicion.

Roberts v. Spielman

643 F.3d 899 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jun 14, 2011

Deputy Spielman moved for summary judgment based on qualified immunity. … BACKGROUND FACTS “We review de novo the denial of a motion for summary judgment based on qualified immunity.” Jean-Baptiste v. Gutierrez, 627 F.3d 816, 820 (11th Cir. 2010).

Tempel v. School District of Waukesha

District Court, E.D. Wisconsin · Dec 20, 2023

of clearly established law.” … Dismissal based on qualified immunity is not appropriate at this juncture. Tempel’s complaint alleges a violation of a constitutional right and this right was clearly established at the time of Defendants’ actions.

Abella v. Simon

831 F. Supp. 2d 1316 · District Court, S.D. Florida · Nov 28, 2011

Therefore, the burden shifts to Abella to demonstrate that Simon violated a clearly established statutory or constitutional right to overcome the qualified immunity defense. … Therefore, the burden again shifts to Plaintiff to demonstrate that Defendants violated a clearly established statutory or constitutional right to overcome the qualified immunity defense.

Wesley Brayman, Debra Brayman v. United States of America, Mark Shepherd

96 F.3d 1061 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Sep 4, 1996

Government officials are entitled to qualified immunity from civil liability unless their actions violated “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … We conclude that because the Braymans failed to allege a violation of a clearly established constitutional right, Shepherd is entitled to qualified immunity on all of their Bivens claims.