Case law

Thornton v. City of Macon

132 F.3d 1395 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jan 13, 1998

A public official is entitled to qualified immunity from a § 1983 damages action if his actions did not violate clearly established law. … It is clearly established that the use of excessive force in carrying out an arrest constitutes a violation of the Fourth Amendment. See Graham v.

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

Tearpock-Martini v. Borough

98 F. Supp. 3d 697 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 20, 2015

For a qualified immunity analysis, therefore, the court must examine: 1) whether the officials violated a constitutional right and 2) whether that right was clearly established at the time. Wright v. … Accordingly, we cannot find that the right was clearly established at the time and qualified immunity applies to the individual defendants.

Greiner v. City of Champlin

27 F.3d 1346 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jul 5, 1994

The district court held the federal claims were barred by qualified immunity and the state claims by official immunity. … An official loses immunity if, first, the law he violated was clearly established at the time of the violation, and second, the applicability of the law to his particular action was evident. Id.

Timmons v. New York State Department of Correctional Services

887 F. Supp. 576 · District Court, S.D. New York · May 25, 1995

He argues, however, that he is entitled to qualified immunity on this portion of plaintiffs Eighth Amendment claim. Good faith or qualified immunity is an affirmative defense in actions under § 1983. Harlow v. … Even where a right has been clearly established, a defendant is immune from liability if it was objectively reasonable for him to believe that his acts did not violate *581 that right. Anderson v.

Bouggess v. Mattingly

426 F. Supp. 2d 601 · District Court, W.D. Kentucky · Mar 31, 2006

Qualified immunity must be granted if the plaintiff cannot establish each of these elements ... … Clearly Established Right?

Richardson v. U.S. Department of Interior

740 F. Supp. 15 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 12, 1990

Qualified immunity insulates officials from personal liability when their alleged tortious conduct did not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have been aware … Violations of “Clearly Established” Right In Harlow , the Supreme Court held that to overcome an assertion of qualified immunity the constitutional rights alleged by plaintiff to have been violated must have been “clearly

Gagne v. DeMarco

281 F. Supp. 2d 390 · District Court, D. Connecticut · Aug 26, 2003

The defendants argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity. The Court will address each of these arguments below after a general discussion of qualified immunity. … If the law was clearly established that the officer’s conduct violated a constitutional right, qualified immunity is inappropriate.

Osipova v. Dinkins

864 F. Supp. 360 · District Court, S.D. New York · Oct 6, 1994

DISCUSSION Qualified immunity has long shielded government officials performing discretionary functions “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … Thus, Martinez is only entitled to qualified immunity if, assuming the facts as set forth by the plaintiff, it was objectively reasonable for Martinez to believe, in light of clearly established law and the information he

Zackary Stewart v. Karl Wagner

836 F.3d 978 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Sep 12, 2016

On this record, we conclude it was error to deny Prosecutor Selby qualified immunity on this claim because Stewart failed to present sufficient evidence that Wagner and Selby violated “clearly established [Fourth Amendment … If the motion was made and denied, that would at least establish there was no clearly established violation of the Sixth Amendment.

Bellotte v. Edwards

629 F.3d 415 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Jan 11, 2011

Kennedy, 349 F.3d 731, 743 (4th Cir.2003), we affirm the district court’s holding that this no-knock entry violated the Bellottes’ clearly established constitutional rights and does not warrant an award of qualified immunity … Because we have jurisdiction over the denial of a claim for qualified immunity on summary judgment only “to the extent that the official maintains that the official’s conduct did not violate clearly established law,” Winfield

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.

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

Darryl Leon Rouse v. William Plantier, Acting Superintendent of A.D.T.C. Sally S. Scheidemantel, Resigning Superintendent of A.D.T.C. William H. Fauver, Commissioner of N.J. Department of Corrections Governor Jim Florio, State of New Jersey Dr. Robert Cardinale, Medical Director of A.D.T.C. Dr. Narshima Reddy, Attending Physician of A.D.T.C. Ms. Elaine Martin, Chief Nurse of A.D.T.C. Captain Helmkin, Housing Mike Zell, Director of Social Services Dr. Sandoval, Attending Psychologist of A.D.T.C. Dr. Cattone, M.D., St. Francis Hospital Scott Faunce Dr. Tarlian, M.D. Dr. O'bryne, M.D. Dr. Todd, M.D., St. Francis Hospital Charles Brooks, on Behalf of a Class of Themselves and Others Similarly Situated Stephen Jankowski, on Behalf of a Class of Themselves and Others Similarly Situated Julio Baez, on Behalf of a Class of Themselves and Others Similarly Situated Robert Kammerer, on Behalf of a Class of Themselves and Others Similarly Situated v. Elaine Allen John Doe Jane Roe William Plantier Robert Cardinale Narshima Reddy Elaine Allen

182 F.3d 192 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jun 29, 1999

Turning to defendants' qualified immunity defense, the District Court held that the right at issue was clearly established and that the defendants had failed to demonstrate the reasonableness of their actions. … immunity, it is necessary to determine whether a reasonable official in the position of that defendant would have known that his or her actions were unconstitutional in light of the clearly established law and the information

Bird v. State Through Corbin

170 Ariz. 20 · Court of Appeals of Arizona · Nov 21, 1991

and (2) qualified immunity, which is available for nondiscretionary acts. … The licensing and regulation of any profession or occupation falls within the grant of absolute immunity, not qualified immunity.

Daniel Tanner v. Anita Phillips

669 F. App'x 444 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Oct 4, 2016

established right. 2 14-35983 See Pearson v. … Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 232 (2009) (defendant is entitled to qualified immunity unless the conduct at issue violated a clearly established constitutional right).

McCall Ex Rel. Odom v. Department of Human Resources

176 F. Supp. 2d 1355 · District Court, M.D. Georgia · Nov 29, 2001

their conduct violates no ‘clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’ ” Lassiter v. … “For the law to be clearly established to the point that qualified immunity does not apply, the law must have earlier been developed in such a concrete and factually defined context to make it obvious to all reasonable government

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”

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.

Dominguez v. Figueroa Sancha

373 F. Supp. 3d 333 · United States District Court · Feb 7, 2019

Qualified Immunity [A] public actor's liability under [ § ] 1983 is not absolute: the doctrine of qualified immunity provides a safe harbor for a wide range of mistaken judgments. *348 Cox v. … Predictably, they now move for summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds, so the court will give it a second go. The qualified immunity inquiry "entails a two-step pavane." Alfano v.