Case law

Tennyson v. Children's Services Division

308 Or. 80 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jun 13, 1989

Under section 1983, there are two types of immunity: qualified and absolute. 3 Qualified immunity is the norm for executive officials. Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 US 800, 807 , 102 S Ct 2727 , 73 L Ed 2d 396 (1982). … It protects conduct that “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. Fitzgerald, supra, 457 US at 818 ; see also Anderson v.

Sandra Outler v. Kelly Cooper

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Nov 10, 2025

Cooper argues that we have jurisdiction because this appeal presents issues of law re- lating to his qualified-immunity defense. … However, Cooper argues in his merits brief that, even if he violated the Eighth Amendment, that violation was not clearly established at the relevant time, USCA11 Case: 25-11522 Document: 29-2 Date

Elizabeth Fujiwara v. Charles G. Clark, Etc.

703 F.2d 357 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Apr 1, 1983

Strickland rule, the immunity defense would be unavailing to petitioners if the constitutional right allegedly infringed by them was clearly established at the time of their challenged conduct, if they knew or should have … If the law was clearly established, the immunity defense ordinarily should fail, since a reasonably competent public official should know the law governing his conduct.

Charles v. Grief

522 F.3d 508 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Mar 31, 2008

that their conduct is objectively reasonable in light of clearly established law. … established law, officials may sometimes be required to proceed to trial even though the ultimate resolution of those factual disputes may show that they are entitled to qualified immunity from liability.”

Estate of Gaither v. District of Columbia

833 F. Supp. 2d 110 · District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 19, 2011

“Qualified immunity shields federal and state officials from suit unless a plaintiff alleges facts showing (1) that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was ‘clearly established … qualified immunity appropriate.

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.

Liffiton v. Keuker

850 F.2d 73 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jun 21, 1988

Even if they are not entitled to absolute immunity, they may be entitled to qualified immunity if their actions were objectively reasonable under clearly established law. Harlow v. … Such an action is neither clearly prosecutorial in nature, entitling him to absolute immunity, nor objectively reasonable under clearly established law, entitling him to qualified immunity.

Gray-Hopkins v. Prince George's County, Maryland

309 F.3d 224 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Oct 30, 2002

official's conduct did not violate clearly established law." … qualified immunity doctrine as set forth in Harlow v.

Daskalea v. Washington Humane Society

577 F. Supp. 2d 90 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 9, 2008

Circuit has explained, “[qjualified immunity shields officials from liability for damages so long as their actions were objectively reasonable, as measured in light of the legal rules that were ‘clearly established’ at the … if so, whether the allegedly violated constitutional rights were clearly established.

Blissett v. Coughlin

66 F.3d 531 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Sep 25, 1995

In the context of the claims in this case, qualified immunity affords government officials a two-tier defense “from liability from civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … Consistent with their pretrial posture, Appellants made no further effort to establish a qualified immunity defense following the colloquy.

Ambrose v. Coffey

696 F. Supp. 2d 1119 · District Court, E.D. California · Mar 31, 2010

immunity. 4 Specifically, the court held that these defendants were entitled to qualified immunity because it was not clearly established that the performance of MUAs by licensed chiropractors in California was legal. … In its December 24, 2009 order the court held that because it was not clearly established that the performance of MUAs was lawful, defendants Weydert and Coffey were entitled to qualified immunity on plaintiffs’ claims under

Heard v. Dulayev

29 F.4th 1195 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Mar 29, 2022

The defendants argued Dulayev was entitled to qualified immunity because Dulayev’s alleged actions did not amount to a constitutional violation under clearly established law. … “In cases where we . . . resolve [the related] claim under the clearly- established-law prong” of the qualified immunity defense, however, “we have repeatedly declined to exercise pendent appellate jurisdiction over

Noland v. Wheatley

835 F. Supp. 476 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Oct 22, 1993

Qualified immunity provides a defense to conduct which “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” 457 U.S. at 818 , 102 S.Ct. at 2738 . … The defendants claim entitlement to qualified immunity, contending that the ADA was not clearly established law during the time in which the conduct that Mr. Noland alleges occurred.

Herrera v. Santa Fe Public Schools

41 F. Supp. 3d 1027 · District Court, D. New Mexico · Aug 29, 2014

(“Robles has successfully established the violation of a clearly established right and therefore qualified immunity is not appropriate. … Clearly Established Rights in the Qualifíed Immunity Analysis.

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

Carrasquillo v. Aponte Roque

682 F. Supp. 137 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Mar 9, 1988

those rights was ‘clearly established in plaintiff's favor.’ ” Juarbe-Angueira v. … Put another way, “only where the action in question is clearly unlawful does a defendant lose his qualified immunity.” Juarbe-Angueira, 831 F.2d at 12 (emphasis in original).

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.

Brown v. Ridgway

845 F. Supp. 2d 1273 · District Court, M.D. Florida · Feb 29, 2012

“Once the defendant establishes that he was acting within his discretionary authority, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to show that qualified immunity is not appropriate.” Id. … See Harlow, 457 U.S. at 818 , 102 S.Ct. 2727 (“Qualified immunity protects government officials performing discretionary functions from civil liability under federal law unless their conduct violates a clearly established

Kelsea Mercer v. Athens Cnty., Ohio

72 F.4th 152 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 29, 2023

Qualified Immunity Nurse Gray, Officer Lowery, and Officer Jarvis assert qualified immunity. … Moreover, “[w]hen federal qualified immunity and Ohio state-law immunity under § 2744.03(A)(6) rest on the same questions of material fact, we may review the state-law immunity defense ‘through the lens of the federal qualified

Brown v. Smythe

780 F. Supp. 274 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 7, 1992

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity serves to insulate governmental officials from liability for civil damages when the discretionary conduct of that official “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … The defendants bear the burden of establishing the defense of qualified immunity, and a plaintiff may overcome the official’s defense by demonstrating that his or her clearly established rights were knowingly or recklessly