Case law

James v. Price

602 F. Supp. 843 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Feb 21, 1985

Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 , 102 S.Ct. 2727 , 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982), a government official performing a discretionary function is shielded by qualified immunity unless his actions violated “clearly established statutory or … Operating on the assumption that the right to be free from malicious prosecution was not a clearly established right, we found that the *846 state officers in this case were entitled to rely on the qualified immunity defense

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.

Williams v. Morgan

710 F. Supp. 1080 · District Court, S.D. Mississippi · Jan 5, 1989

Under the objective standard, the immunity defense is unavailable to the defendant “if the constitutional right allegedly infringed by [him] was clearly established at the time of [his] challenged conduct, if [he] knew or … The question becomes, therefore, whether he forfeited that immunity if he engaged in conduct which he knew or should have known would infringe a “clearly established” constitutional right enjoyed by the plaintiff.

Chew v. Gates

27 F.3d 1432 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jun 27, 1994

Bagley, 988 F.2d 868 (9th Cir.1993), in which we employed “a two-part analysis” to determine whether the defendants were entitled to qualified immunity: “1) Was the law governing the official's conduct clearly established … 's first question dictates our decision on qualified immunity, and not only when we decide that the law is not clearly established.

Marcelino Alvarez-Victoriano v. City of Waterloo, Iowa, C.J. Nichols, In His/Her Individual and Official Capacity, and Waterloo Police Department

Supreme Court of Iowa · Jan 6, 2023

First, Iowa Code section 670.4A(1)(a) (2022) provides qualified immunity to employees or officers subject to claims arising under the IMTCA: 1. … The right, privilege, or immunity secured by law was not clearly established at the time of the alleged deprivation, or at the time of the alleged deprivation the state of the law was not sufficiently clear

Warren v. Keane

937 F. Supp. 301 · District Court, S.D. New York · Sep 10, 1996

Nor are defendants entitled to the affirmative defense of qualified immunity. … To establish the defense of qualified immunity, defendants must show either that their “conduct did not violate ‘clearly established rights’ of which a reasonable person would have known, or that it was ‘objectively reasonable

Knighton v. Benton County, MS

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Aug 6, 2026

Qualified Immunity When considering a qualified immunity defense, we must determine whether the defendant violated plaintiff’s constitutional rights and, if so, whether defendant violated clearly established law. … And it is clearly established. Good v.

Hansen v. Bennett

948 F.2d 397 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Nov 27, 1991

If Bennett was attempting to suppress Hansen’s speech on the basis of its content, then he violated clearly established rights and is not entitled to qualified immunity. Collinson v. … If, on the other hand, he was enforcing an appropriately limited time, place, and manner restriction, then he did not violate clearly established rights, Jones v.

Clairmont v. Sound Mental Health

632 F.3d 1091 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jan 19, 2011

The district court held, in the alternative, that “Clairmont’s First Amendment right was not so ‘clearly established’ as to preclude qualified immunity for Ms. Wilson.” … SOUND MENTAL HEALTH immunity. Saucier, 533 U.S. at 201. “If the right was not clearly established at the time of the violation, the official is entitled to qualified immunity.”

Bordas v. Washtenaw County

1 F. Supp. 2d 680 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Apr 2, 1998

A claim of qualified immunity depends on whether the defendant’s conduct violated a clearly established statutory or constitutional right of which a reasonable person would have known. Id. at 638-40 ; Harlow v. … To defeat a motion for summary judgment based on a claim of qualified immunity in the Sixth Circuit, a plaintiff must establish two things.

Ball v. Township of Silver Spring

833 F. Supp. 2d 415 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 13, 2011

Discussion The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials from civil liability insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have … Courts conduct a two step analysis for a qualified immunity defense: whether law enforcement’s acts violated a constitutional right, and if they did, whether that right was clearly established at the time. Mierzwa v.

Livingston v. Luken

151 F. App'x 470 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Oct 26, 2005

“According to the doctrine of qualified immunity, ‘government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established … established federal law so as to overcome Appellants’ assertion of qualified immunity.

Lenell Geter v. James Fortenberry

882 F.2d 167 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Sep 5, 1989

We examine the plaintiffs’ factual allegations only to determine whether they would be sufficient, if proven, to make out a violation of clearly-established law. 3 II. … However, in Geter I we held that these same allegations were substantial enough to “remove the cloak of qualified immunity”: “[A] police officer cannot avail himself of a qualified immunity defense if he procures false identification

David McNair v. Collin Pratt

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Sep 3, 2025

In denying qualified immunity, the district court resolved the legal question of whether Pratt’s conduct violated clearly established law, giving us the opportunity to review immediately its resolution of that issue. … In this case, we can begin and end our analysis with the second step of the qualified- immunity analysis, because we hold that Pratt’s conduct did not violate McNair’s clearly established rights.

Smith v. Smith

589 F.3d 736 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Dec 28, 2009

was clearly established." … In evaluating Nurse Smith’s motion to dismiss and her claim to qualified immunity, the district court found that "the general Eighth Amendment right at issue was clearly estab- lished at the time of the events alleged in

Smith v. King

615 So. 2d 69 · Supreme Court of Alabama · Mar 19, 1993

The concept of qualified or substantive governmental immunity as a defense against tort liability under certain circumstances is well established in the law of this State. … Having concluded that seclusion was called for, Gibson followed established procedures.

Moore v. City of Wynnewood

57 F.3d 924 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jun 13, 1995

were not clearly established. … First Amendment rights were clearly established, and Sanders, therefore, would be entitled to the defense of qualified immunity.

Schatz Family v. Lynne Geirer

346 F.3d 1157 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Oct 16, 2003

-3-  The district court announced the proper standard for addressing qualified immunity at the Rule 12(b)(6) stage – whether immunity is established on the face of the … However, we take this opportunity to suggest that district courts clearly address the qualified immunity issue."), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 946 (1993).

Vaughn v. Soltis

District Court, E.D. Michigan · Mar 30, 2023

In the qualified immunity context, “[t]he sources of clearly established law to be considered are limited. … Here, the Court proceeds directly to the clearly established step of the qualified immunity analysis: whether it was clearly established at the time of Vaughn’s encounter with the deputies that the

Wilson v. Lamp

142 F. Supp. 3d 793 · District Court, N.D. Iowa · Nov 3, 2015

Qualified Immunity For Excessive Force 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 … If’deciding the issue of qualified immunity now, I would resolve that the law is clearly established, based on the Fifth,' Seventh, Eighth,' Ninth, and Tenth Circuit cases cited in Section III(C) of* this Opinion and Order