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.’

Farm Labor Organizing Committee v. Ohio State Highway Patrol

308 F.3d 523 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Oct 17, 2002

Pursuant to this doctrine, federal appellate courts have jurisdiction to hear interlocutory appeals concerning “the legal question of qualified immunity, i.e., whether a given set of facts violates clearly established law … Instead, Kiefer properly limits his appeal to “neat abstract issues of law” relating to qualified immunity — i.e., whether the facts alleged by the plaintiffs demonstrate a violation of clearly established law.

Carrubba v. Moskowitz

81 Conn. App. 382 · Connecticut Appellate Court · Feb 3, 2004

Qualified immunity shields 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 … Qualified immunity typically “turns on the objective legal reasonableness of the action . . . assessed in light of the legal rules that were clearly established at the time it was taken . . . .”

Bennett v. Vidal

267 F. Supp. 3d 487 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jul 25, 2017

Qualified immunity protects government officials performing discretionary functions, such- as arrests, “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … Officer Vidal moves for summary judgment dismissing the plaintiffs claim for malicious prosecution based on qualified immunity.

Muhammad v. Close

798 F. Supp. 2d 869 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Jul 8, 2011

Qualified immunity The defendant first raised the issue of qualified immunity in its supplemental brief in this Court after the latest remand. In English v. … Qualified immunity is an affirmative defense that protects government actors performing discretionary functions from liability for civil damages when them conduct does “not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional

Clay v. Woodbury County

982 F. Supp. 2d 904 · District Court, N.D. Iowa · Nov 6, 2013

Clay’s reliance on a “generalized right” to be free from an unreasonable search is not sufficient to “clearly establish” the specific right on which her claim hangs for purposes of “qualified immunity.” … Turning to the second prong of the “qualified immunity” analysis, whether the right was “clearly established,” see Burton, 731 F.3d at 791-92 , the decisions in Hicks v.

Burgos-Yantin v. Municipality of Juana Díaz

669 F. Supp. 2d 191 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Nov 6, 2009

The qualified immunity doctrine shields government officials performing “discretionary functions from ... civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … “[A] defendant who claims qualified immunity must do so either [1] on the theory that the asserted right is not clearly established or [2] on the theory that the conduct attributed to him satisfies the test of objective legal

Hufford v. McEnaney

249 F.3d 1142 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · May 22, 2001

On interlocutory appeal from a denial of summary judgment on a claim of qualified immunity, we have jurisdiction over the purely legal question of whether Hufford has established a claim supported by clearly established law … Hufford, as the party seeking to deprive the defendants of qualified immunity, bears the burden of proving that the rights he claims were “clearly established” at the time they were allegedly violated.

Baar v. JEFFERSON COUNTY BD. OF EDUC.

666 F. Supp. 2d 701 · District Court, W.D. Kentucky · Oct 27, 2009

In an extraordinary case, it may be possible for the decisions of other courts to clearly establish a principle of law. … Because Plaintiff's right to attend the LACA meetings was not clearly established at the time of Jury's reprimand, all of the individual defendants should be entitled to qualified immunity on the damages claim. V.

Keith K. Stevens v. Scott Rose, Esq. Kenny Moore County of Lander, and Troy Hanson

298 F.3d 880 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Aug 2, 2002

Establishing qualified immunity requires that the official’s conduct be objectively reasonable “as measured by reference to clearly established law.” Harlow v. … We therefore affirm the district court’s denial of Hanson’s motion for summary judgment on qualified immunity. AFFIRMED. 1 .

Brian Royster v. New Jersey State Police(075926)

227 N.J. 482 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jan 17, 2017

Defendant also stresses that sovereign immunity is a well-established defense to ADA claims in federal courts, and that plaintiff could have pursued both the LAD and ADA claims for failure to provide reasonable accommodations … Burdette Tomlin Mem’l Hosp., 438 F.3d 240, 246, n.12 (3d Cir. 2006)). 5 *500 To establish a failure-to-accommodate claim under the LAD, a plaintiff must demonstrate that he or she (1) “qualifies as an individual with a disability

Jon Holland v. Martin Simmerman

Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Aug 25, 2026

“Qualified immunity shields public officials from liability for civil damages if their conduct did not ‘violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’” … To overcome dismissal based on qualified immunity, “the plaintiff must plead facts showing (1) that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was clearly established at the time of

Savage v. Westcott

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Sep 29, 2025

A public official is entitled to qualified immunity unless “(1) the plaintiff alleged a violation of a constitutional right; and (2) that right was ‘clearly established’ at the time of the alleged violation.” 8 “We may address … To survive a motion to dismiss based on qualified immunity, Savage must show both that the Defendants’ actions violated his right to due process and that this right was clearly established at the time of Defendants’ actions

Thomas v. Harrisburg City Police Department

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 15, 2021

for purposes of qualified immunity.” … a defendant’s conduct at issue did not violate a “clearly established” right.

Owens v. Zade

District Court, D. Colorado · Jun 20, 2023

6 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 … Zade in her individual capacity at trial if he can demonstrate that the right at issue is clearly established. See [Doc. 37 at 12–13 (invoking qualified immunity)].

Michael Bailey Jane Bailey Billy Bailey v. D.H. Kennedy D.B. Whitley Mike Crisp City of Hickory, Michael Bailey Jane Bailey Billy Bailey v. D.H. Kennedy D.B. Whitley Mike Crisp City of Hickory

349 F.3d 731 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Nov 17, 2003

As discussed below, accepting the facts as the district court 2 viewed them in denying qualified immunity, the police officers violated clearly established federal law. … official's conduct did not violate clearly established law."

Crouse v. South Lebanon Township

668 F. Supp. 2d 664 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 22, 2009

to qualified immunity. … Police officers enjoy qualified immunity unless they violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Wright, 409 F.3d at 599-600.

Rapkin v. Rocque

228 F. Supp. 2d 142 · District Court, D. Connecticut · Oct 22, 2002

clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person *146 would have known.” … objectively legally reasonable in light of the legal rules that were clearly established at the time it was taken.

Maria Castro v. United States of America, Don Abrams, Jason Davs, Daniel Bologna

34 F.3d 106 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Sep 2, 1994

Defendants assert that they have qualified immunity because officials performing discretionary functions are immune from suit for damages unless the conduct in question violates clearly estab *110 lished statutory or constitutional … Though a mere mistake in the performance of an official duty may not deprive the officer of qualified immunity, that doctrine does not shield performance that either (a) was in violation of clearly established law, or (b)

Robert W. Fowler v. Armond Cross, Commissioner of Florida Parole Board

635 F.2d 476 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jan 27, 1981

Navarette, 434 U.S. at 562 , 98 S.Ct. at 859 , the Supreme Court said: 9 [T]he [qualified] immunity defense would be unavailing to petitioners if the constitutional right allegedly infringed by them was clearly established … The district court’s finding of qualified immunity is clearly erroneous and is reversed. III.