Case law

Redwood v. Lierman

Appellate Court of Illinois · Jun 7, 2002

Qualified Immunity Defendants argue that under the facts in the amended complaint, they are entitled to a qualified immunity from liability because the applicable legal standards were not clearly established at the time they … The majority's rule requiring a warrant is not only not clearly established, it is not the law. Qualified immunity applies.

Isaiah Taylor v. Justin Schwarzhuber

Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Mar 19, 2025

Qualified immunity shields federal and state officials from monetary liability unless the law they ostensibly violated was clearly established at the time of the alleged offense. … The court awarded qualified immunity to Schwarzhuber and Rydzewski on Taylor’s initial stop and frisk claims be- cause Taylor did not provide cases showing the officers’ ac- tions violated clearly established law.

Deutsch v. Federal Bureau of Prisons

737 F. Supp. 261 · District Court, S.D. New York · May 2, 1990

The question of whether a right is clearly established is one of law, Yalkut v. … The right the government official is alleged to have violated is “clearly established,” and hence beyond any qualified immunity, when the “contours” of the right are sufficiently unambiguous so that a reasonable official

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.

Seaman v. Karr

59 P.3d 701 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Dec 20, 2002

Clearly Established Law To determine whether a federal right is clearly established, we look first to United States Supreme Court precedent and then to decisions of the controlling Circuit Court of Appeals. … For qualified immunity purposes, "clearly established" means: The contours of the right must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that right.

Morales v. Weiss

709 F. App'x 95 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jan 24, 2018

Defendants “are entitled to qualified immunity if they can establish either that (1) a constitutional right was not violated or (2) the right was not clearly established.” Royal Crown Day Care LLC v. … Fitzsimmons, 509 U.S. 259, 273 , 113 S.Ct. 2606 , 125 L.Ed.2d 209 (1993); and Weiss was entitled to qualified immunity for contacting ICE because that act did not violate any clearly established constitutional or statutory

Lisa Price v. Montgomery County

72 F.4th 711 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 5, 2023

To overcome a defendant’s qualified immunity defense, a plaintiff must plausibly allege that (1) the official violated a federal statutory or constitutional right, and (2) the right was “clearly established” at the time of … Miller has neither proven that violating a court order constitutes a constitutional violation, nor that such a violation is clearly established. As a result, Craycraft is entitled to qualified immunity.

Greffey v. State of Ala. Dept. of Corrections

996 F. Supp. 1368 · District Court, N.D. Alabama · Mar 20, 1998

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity insulates governmental officials in their individual capacities from civil lawsuits, so long as the challenged discretionary conduct does not violate clearly established federal statutory … were clearly established at the time of the challenged actions____The words ‘clearly established ... constitutional rights’ may not be used to read the defense of immunity out of federal tort law by the facile expedi *1386

Allen v. Higgins

902 F.2d 682 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · May 4, 1990

Based on the trial court’s finding that the catalog ordered by Allen, “clearly posed no threat to the security of the institution,” the trial court concluded that Groose was not entitled to qualified immunity. We agree. … A government official performing discretionary functions is generally entitled to qualified immunity when his conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would

Jennifer Harmon v. Second Judicial Circuit of the State of Missouri

Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jan 13, 2025

The court concluded that the Government Defendants were entitled to qualified immunity because Harmon failed to show that any constitutional violation was clearly established. … Because Harmon failed to show that the alleged substantive due process violations were clearly established, the Government Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity for the § 1983 claims.

Waste Conversion, Inc. v. Sims

868 F. Supp. 643 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Nov 15, 1994

The court also found that the right to a prompt post-deprivation right was “clearly established,” and thus defendants were not entitled to qualified immunity. (Id. at 7). … Finally, even if defendants did violate plaintiffs’ due process rights, these rights were not “clearly established,” and thus defendants are not liable under the doctrine of qualified immunity.

Lilly v. Lewiston-Porter Central School District

853 F. Supp. 2d 346 · District Court, W.D. New York · Dec 20, 2011

qualified immunity did not apply. … Then we consider if the violated right was clearly established at the time of the conduct....

Larry Hope v. Mark Pelzer, Gene McClaran

240 F.3d 975 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Feb 14, 2001

’s qualified immunity analysis. … Public officials are entitled to qualified immunity from monetary damages if “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”

Cannon v. Polk County/Polk County Sheriff

68 F. Supp. 3d 1267 · District Court, D. Oregon · Dec 18, 2014

Second, the court must determine whether the right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation. Id. … Even if the violated right was clearly established at the time of the violation, the defendant is entitled to qualified immunity if his mistake as to what the law requires is reasonable. Id. at 205, 121 S.Ct. 2151 .

Ginter v. Stallcup

869 F.2d 384 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Mar 6, 1989

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY Ginter challenges the decision to grant qualified immunity to Blasingame and Lee before allowing her to conduct discovery in this case. … Ginter to violate any statutory or constitutional right which had been “clearly established” prior to June 3, 1983.

Smith v. Wolfe

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 6, 2020

State officials - 18 - have qualified immunity from claims for monetary relief if their conduct “does not violate a clearly established statutory or constitutional right of which a reasonable … As to the question of whether the right at issue was clearly established when the Defendants’ conduct took place, courts should not “define clearly established law at a high level of generality.” Id. at 716.

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).

Holloway v. Lamar County

180 F. Supp. 3d 467 · District Court, S.D. Mississippi · Apr 8, 2016

“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 rights of which a reasonable person … Therefore, because a reasonable officer would have known that tasing Plaintiff was objectively unreasonable under clearly established law, the Court does not find that Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity and will

Estate of Holmes v. Somers

387 F. Supp. 3d 1233 · District Court, D. Kansas · Apr 17, 2019

Qualified immunity "shields public officials ... from damages actions unless their conduct was unreasonable in light of clearly established law." Gann v. … When the defense of qualified immunity is asserted, a plaintiff must show: "(1) that the defendant's actions violated a federal constitutional or statutory right, and, if so, (2) that the right was clearly established at

Edwards v. Cabrera

861 F. Supp. 664 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Aug 10, 1994

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity will shield the officers from liability to the extent their conduct did not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known … The Seventh Circuit has described the qualified immunity inquiry as having two prongs: First, the plaintiff must show that the law was clearly established when the challenged' conduct occurred.