Case law

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

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.

Harrison v. State

203 So. 3d 126 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama · Dec 18, 2015

Absent a clearly expressed legislative intent to the contrary, the language of the statute is conclusive. … We first note that Harrison is not entitled to any relief on his claim that he presented sufficient evidence during trial and after trial to establish that he was immune from prosecution.

Brown v. Fogle

867 F. Supp. 2d 61 · District Court, District of Columbia · May 17, 2012

Qualified immunity is “a defense that shields officials from suit if their conduct ‘d[id] not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’ ” Bame v. … "If no constitutional right would have been violated were the allegations established, there is no necessity for further inquiries concerning qualified immunity." Id.

Ricky Brogsdale v. Marion S. Barry, Jr., Donyell A. Marsh v. Marion S. Barry, Jr.

926 F.2d 1184 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Mar 12, 1991

legal rules that were ‘clearly established’ at the time it was taken.” … Hollowell, 714 F.2d 1372, 1376 (5th Cir.1983) (inmates’ rights were “clearly established” by earlier court order, such that breach of that order could not be within officials’ qualified immunity).

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.

Keil v. Triveline

661 F.3d 981 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Nov 21, 2011

Qualified immunity shields public officials from civil lawsuits when their conduct does not violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. … To determine whether the agents are entitled to qualified immunity, we consider (1) whether the facts alleged, construed in the light most favorable to Keil, establish a violation of a constitutional or statutory right, and

Cunningham v. Snyder

472 F. Supp. 2d 1023 · District Court, S.D. Illinois · Sep 19, 2006

To defeat a qualified immunity defense, a plaintiff bears the burden of demonstrating that “the legal norms allegedly violated by the defendant were clearly established at the time of the challenged actions or, ... the law … See Greenberg, 840 F.2d at 472 (quoting Harlow, 457 U.S. at 818 , 102 S.Ct. 2727 ) (observing that the principle underlying the doctrine of qualified immunity is that “[i]f the law at the time was not clearly established,

Arias v. Amador

61 F. Supp. 3d 960 · District Court, E.D. California · Nov 21, 2014

Qualified immunity shields 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 would have known … . *971 The qualified immunity inquiry has two prongs: (1) “whether the facts that a plaintiff has ... shown ... make out a violation of a constitutional right,” and (2) “whether the right at issue was ‘clearly established

Shekleton v. Eichenberger

677 F.3d 361 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · May 3, 2012

Qualified immunity protects officers from liability in a section 1983 case “unless the official’s conduct violates a clearly established constitutional or statutory right of which a reasonable person would have known.” … clearly established constitutional violation.

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

Allah v. Juchenwioz

176 F. App'x 187 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Apr 12, 2006

which the Court found to exist in its 1999 decision was not clearly established at the relevant time.” … “In general, public officials are entitled to qualified immunity if (1) their conduct does not violate clearly established constitutional rights, or (2) it was objectively reasonable for them to believe their acts did not

Jackson v. Brown

134 F. Supp. 3d 1237 · District Court, E.D. California · Sep 28, 2015

Accordingly, the Court skips the first step of the Saucier qualified immunity analysis. b. Defendants Did Not Violate Clearly Established Law. … The second prong of the qualified immunity analysis requires the Court to determine whether the allegedly violated constitutional right was clearly established at the time that Defendants allegedly violated that right.

Cook v. City of Groton

952 F. Supp. 101 · District Court, D. Connecticut · Feb 6, 1997

A police officer is entitled to qualified immunity unless his conduct violated a right that was clearly established at the time. … Because the contours of the right on which the plaintiff relies were not clearly established at the pertinent time, the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. 3.

Amore v. Novarro

610 F.3d 155 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jun 22, 2010

The district court concluded that Novarro was not entitled to qualified immunity: Amore had a clearly established constitutional right to be free from unlawful arrest, and it would have been clear to a reasonable officer … Whether the “objectively reasonable” inquiry is framed as part of the “clearly established” inquiry, or apart from it, does not affect the outcome of the qualified immunity analysis here. 9 *163 III.

Bruner v. Cassidy

Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jan 8, 2026

Clearly established that it was unreasonable Even if their conduct is deemed unreasonable in the instant case, officers are still entitled to qualified immunity if the law did not clearly establish that the conduct … This use of force was excessive, and the law clearly established it was a constitutional violation at the time, meaning the officers are not entitled to qualified immunity.

Felix E. Capoeman v. Amos Reed

754 F.2d 1512 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Apr 22, 1985

Qualified Immunity Even defendants who violate constitutional rights enjoy a qualified immunity that protects them from liability for damages “unless it is further demonstrated that their conduct was unreasonable under the … Nonetheless, we found that the basic fourth amendment rights of students had been sufficiently clearly established at the time to prevent the defendants’ immunity. Id.

Mocek v. City of Albuquerque

813 F.3d 912 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Dec 22, 2015

A circuit split will not satisfy the clearly established prong of qualified immunity. But even if we were persuaded by Tobey, Mocek has made no compelling argument as to why its logic should apply here. … Jurisdiction 10 Although qualified immunity shields municipal employees where the law is not clearly established, this defense does not apply to municipalities themselves. Cordova v.

Sadallah v. City Of Utica

383 F.3d 34 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Sep 3, 2004

defendant's action was objective[ly] legal [ly] reasonable[ ] ... in light of the legal rules that were clearly established at the time it was taken. 10 X-Men Sec., Inc. v. … Accordingly, Hanna is entitled to qualified immunity. C.