Case law

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.

Doe v. Ferguson

128 F.4th 727 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Feb 13, 2025

“Qualified immunity protects officers from suit unless their conduct violates a clearly established [statutory or] constitutional right.” Converse v. City of Kemah, 961 F.3d 771, 774 (5th Cir. 2020) (quoting Mace v. … If defendant asserts a qualified-immunity defense, “a plaintiff seeking to overcome qualified immunity must show: (1) that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was clearly established

Nicholas Bolton v. Sheriff of Coweta County, GA

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · May 21, 2026

that “was clearly established.” … Bolton fails to explain how any violation of his rights was clearly established.

Dontray Chaney v. City of Orlando, FL

291 F. App'x 238 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 26, 2008

Qualified immunity shields officers from civil liability if, considering the facts in the light most favorable to the party asserting the injury, the officers’ conduct does not violate clearly established constitutional … to establish that qualified immunity does not apply.”

Bozeman v. Orum

199 F. Supp. 2d 1216 · District Court, M.D. Alabama · Apr 12, 2002

To resolve the qualified-immunity question, therefore, a determination as to whether this incident implicates a clearly established constitutional right must be made. … Without clearly established law to guide the officer’s actions, qualified immunity applies. Summary judgment is due on the fourth-amendment excessive-force claim against the officers. 3.

Yarris v. County of Delaware

465 F.3d 129 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Oct 2, 2006

immunity. 53 Qualified immunity shields state officials from suit when their conduct "does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known." … If the court concludes that the defendant's conduct violated a clearly established constitutional or statutory right, it must deny the defendant the protection afforded by qualified immunity.

Egolf v. Witmer

421 F. Supp. 2d 858 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 9, 2006

Defendants Are Entitled To Qualified Immunity Because A Reasonable Person Would Not Have Believed They Were Violating Clearly Established Rights. … The Supreme Court has directed that regardless of whether the rights at issue are ones that “a reasonable person would have known” or are “clearly established,” I must begin my evaluation of a qualified immunity defense by

Howard Ex Rel. Estate of Howard v. Bayes

378 F. Supp. 2d 753 · District Court, E.D. Kentucky · Jan 5, 2005

Violation of Clearly Established Constitutional Right Determining whether a government official was performing a discretionary act, however, does not end the qualified immunity analysis. … Therefore, Bayes is entitled to qualified immunity for his actions as there is no evidence that he violated a clearly established federal right. B.

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.

Haddad v. Fromson

154 F. Supp. 2d 1085 · District Court, W.D. Michigan · May 2, 2001

The only issue for this Court is whether Fromson violated clearly established federal rights guaranteed by the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. 1. … Even if this Court were to find some arguable equal protection or due process violation, Fromson would nevertheless be entitled to qualified immunity unless Plaintiff could show that his rights were “clearly established”

Bloom v. Toliver

133 F. Supp. 3d 1314 · District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · Sep 22, 2015

They are also entitled to qualified immunity because Bloom has not satisfied the “clearly established law” prong, as'required to defeat these defendants’ assertion of qualified immunity. … Hammett does not argue the “clearly established law” prong of the qualified immunity defense.

Opinion No.

Arkansas Attorney General Reports · Jan 17, 2001

The test for the applicability of qualified immunity turns upon the "objective legal reasonableness of the action," assessed in light of legal rules that were "clearly established" at the time the action was taken. … The immunity is "qualified" because it does not obtain where the activity is in violation of clearly established law that a reasonable person would have known. Robinson v.

SAN GERÓNIMO CARIBE PROJECT, INC. v. Vila

663 F. Supp. 2d 54 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Sep 30, 2009

Qualified immunity is applicable unless the official’s conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right. Pearson v. Callahan, — U.S. —, 129 S.Ct. 808, 815-816 , 172 L.Ed.2d 565 (2009)(citing Anderson v. … As aforementioned, when determining qualified immunity, the Court may choose to first assess whether the constitutional right asserted by the Plaintiff was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation.

Nielander v. Board of County Commissioners

582 F.3d 1155 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Aug 31, 2009

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity protects government officials performing discretionary functions from individual liability in federal claims unless their conduct violates “clearly established statutory or constitutional … -24- concluding that statement two was a true threat under clearly established federal law) cannot be resolved as a matter of law, the law is not clearly established and qualified

Fuhr v. City of Seattle

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · May 7, 2026

CITY OF SEATTLE 3 established law that sets out a constitutional violation. Because no case clearly established a Fourth Amendment right violated by Zech, he was entitled to qualified immunity. … Because no case clearly established a Fourth Amendment right violated by Zech, he is entitled to qualified immunity. II. Other Claims Fuhr’s other claims also fail.

KEMP EX REL. WRIGHT v. State, County of Burlington

147 N.J. 294 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jan 14, 1997

N.J.S.A. 26:11-12, however, establishes a generalized grant of qualified immunity to county boards and their agents “for any act ” performed “in good faith and with ordinary discretion.” … We conclude that N.J.S.A. 26:ll-12’s grant of only qualified immunity for discretionary acts is clearly inconsistent with the TCA’s general discretionary immunity provisions which provide for absolute immunity in that context

Rodney Brossart v. Kelly Janke

859 F.3d 616 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jun 16, 2017

” violated his clearly established Fourth Amendment *624 rights. 4 Qualified immunity shields officers from civil damage liability for discretionary acts when “[their] conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … He asserts that our decision affirming the denial of qualified immunity in Shekleton v. Eichenberger, 677 F.3d 361 (8th Cir. 2012), clearly established that Braathan’s conduct was unconstitutional. We disagree.

Tribble v. Gardner

860 F.2d 321 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Oct 25, 1988

The defendants in that case moved for summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity. … established rights. 9 Therefore, we hold that, viewing the facts in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, the district court was correct in denying defendants’ motion for summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity

David C. Warth v. Thomas Williamson

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Mar 2, 2026

immunity, Warth needed to establish that (1) Williamson violated a constitutional right, and (2) the right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation. … Casey, 75 F.4th 1176, 1186 (11th Cir. 2023) (“[T]o establish the defense of qualified immunity for a false arrest claim, we have held that an officer need not have actual probable cause, but only arguable

Don A. Brawner v. City of Richardson, Texas, L.F. Eudy, Richardson Police Department Director, and Kenneth Yarbrough, Chief of Police

855 F.2d 187 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Aug 18, 1988

established at the time he was fired so as to preclude their asserting a claim of qualified immunity. … Qualified immunity is a defense for public officials if “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” 19 “Clearly established” means