Case law

Vega-Santiago v. Ortiz-Velez

405 F. Supp. 2d 170 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Aug 17, 2005

Saucier outlines the two steps of the qualified immunity analysis: (1) if a constitutional right was violated and (2) whether the right was clearly established. … In short, to set aside the buckler of qualified immunity ‘the right the official is alleged to have violated must have been ‘clearly established’ in a more particularized, and hence more relevant, sense.’

Hernandez v. Conde

442 F. Supp. 2d 1131 · District Court, D. Kansas · Jul 24, 2006

A public official performing a discretionary function enjoys qualified immunity in a civil action for damages, provided his or her conduct does not violate clearly established federal statutory or constitutional rights of … On the other hand, if a violation has been shown, the next step in the qualified immunity sequence is to ask whether the constitutional right was clearly established. Id.

Glover v. City of Chicago

2023 IL App (1st) 211353 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Feb 10, 2023

In such situations, the only relevant immunity provision is section 2-202 of the Act, which provides qualified immunity to public employees for acts or omissions “in the execution or enforcement of any law unless such … Additionally, unlike section 4-102, the immunity afforded under section 2-202 is qualified rather than absolute; a police officer is entitled to immunity under the provision unless the officer’s conduct was “willful and

Wallace v. City of Shelby

968 F. Supp. 1204 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · May 30, 1997

The Supreme Court held that, with respect to motions for summary judgment based on qualified immunity, “the judge may appropriately determine, not only the currently applicable law, but whether that law was clearly established … Plaintiffs assert that the use of excessive force is itself a violation of a clearly established constitutional right in “cases dealing with qualified immunity”. (Plaintiffs’ Opp. at 7).

Radecki v. Barela

146 F.3d 1227 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jun 24, 1998

Qualified immunity protects government officials from individual liability in a section 1983 action unless the officials violated clearly established constitutional rights. See Harlow v. … City and County of Denver, 960 F.2d 1493 (10th Cir. 1992), clearly established that Deputy Barela’s conduct was unconstitutional. Thus, the district court again denied qualified immunity to Deputy Barela.

BK v. Toumpas

909 F. Supp. 2d 60 · District Court, D. New Hampshire · Nov 14, 2012

“Qualified immunity shields ... state officials from money damages unless a plaintiff pleads facts showing (1) that the official violated a constitutional or statutory right and (2) that the right was clearly established … In any event, a single decision from another district court does not provide the "fair warning” of clearly established law necessary to overcome the defendants' qualified immunity defense. See Lynch v.

Spivey v. Elliott

41 F.3d 1497 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jan 11, 1995

The defendants are entitled to qualified immunity if it is determined that the legal precedents do not reveal that the defendants violated "clearly established … The opinion is fully reaffirmed, however, on the holding that there was no constitutional duty clearly established at the time of the sexual assault, so the defendant officials were properly entitled to qualified immunity

Shafran v. Parrish

787 So. 2d 177 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · May 11, 2001

Clearly, your actions are criminal regardless of whether or not your accusations are untrue.... . . . . … Therefore, the appellees did not establish that they were entitled to a summary judgment based on an undisputed fact of nonpublication.

Gary Vickery, Cross-Appellee v. Janell Jones, William Pearman and Kirk Brown, and Saline County Republican Central Committee and William Roberts

100 F.3d 1334 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Nov 22, 1996

Second, if so, was the unconstitutionality clearly established or are the state defendants entitled to qualified immunity? Third, did [the plaintiff] suffer an injury by virtue of the defendants’ actions? … Qualified immunity shields government officials who are performing discretionary functions from liability for civil damages “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights

State v. McInnes

2026 Ohio 734 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Mar 5, 2026

“The doctrine of qualified immunity generally shields public officials performing discretionary functions from liability for civil damages to the extent that their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … to qualified immunity.

Killebrew v. City of Greenwood, Miss.

988 F. Supp. 1010 · District Court, N.D. Mississippi · Nov 3, 1997

If so, the court must then decide whether the constitutional right allegedly violated was clearly established at the time of the events in question. Id. … There can certainly be no dispute that the right to equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment was clearly established at the time of the events in question.

Bailey v. United States Marshal Service

584 F. Supp. 2d 128 · District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 3, 2008

Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, “government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … “If no constitutional right would have been violated were the allegations established, there is no necessity for further inquiries concerning qualified immunity.” Saucier, 533 U.S. at 201, 121 S.Ct. 2151 .

Adams v. St. Lucie County Sheriff's Department

962 F.2d 1563 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jun 15, 1992

The court concluded in Ansley that “[t]he Supreme Court’s qualified immunity precedent aims at one goal: to keep the public official out of the courtroom, free to exercise discretionary duties under clearly established law … ’ conduct violated that clearly established law?

Robert Eugene Rogers v. Officer Kevin Powell Officer Jeffrey Stine, A/K/A Stiney Officer Timothy Eiler Officer James Edwards

120 F.3d 446 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Aug 11, 1997

Qualified Immunity A. … immunity protects “government officials performing discretionary functions ... from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a

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.

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.

John K. Maciver Institute for Public Policy, Inc. v. Schmitz

243 F. Supp. 3d 1028 · District Court, W.D. Wisconsin · Mar 16, 2017

Immunity Assuming plaintiffs could prove that defendants violated the SCA and lacked good faith in doing so, there is still the question of their right to absolute or qualified immunity. … Zirkelbach, 149 F.3d 614, 618 (7th Cir. 1998) (framing qualified immunity issue regarding a claim for a violation of the Federal Wiretap Act as “whether [defendant’s] actions violated a clearly established statutory or constitutional

Roy George, Shirley George and Sherrod Fitts v. City of St. Louis, Robert Scheetz, Albert Upchurch and Brian Gilmore

26 F.3d 55 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jun 6, 1994

In other words, to decide whether an official is entitled to qualified immunity, “a court must determine whether the official’s action was objectively legally reasonable in light of the legal rules that were clearly established … to qualified immunity and the district court properly granted summary judgment in favor of the Defendants.

Jacob v. Township of West Bloomfield

531 F.3d 385 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 3, 2008

This second prong of the qualified immunity test clearly weighs in Plaintiffs favor. … claim of qualified immunity.

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