Case law

John L. Augustine v. A. Melvin McDonald

770 F.2d 1442 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Sep 10, 1985

Qualified Immunity 2 Government officials performing discretionary functions may be protected *1445 by a qualified or good faith immunity, under which they “are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct … The only other basis for defeating defendants’ qualified immunity would be a determination that the Arizona statute under which they acted was “clearly” unconstitutional in not providing pre-garnishment notice and an opportunity

Mark Greenman v. Officer Jeremiah Jessen

787 F.3d 882 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · May 28, 2015

Fourth Amendment Violations “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 … “We analyze qualified immunity in two steps: (1) whether the facts that a plaintiff has alleged . . . make out a violation of a constitutional right; and (2) whether the right at issue was clearly established at the time

Wakita Doriety v. Matthew Sletten

Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Jul 29, 2024

‘clearly established’ at the time of the challenged conduct.” … See Lewis, 98 F.4th at 534 (describing the clearly established right prong).

Philip v. Cronin

537 F.3d 26 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Aug 7, 2008

Qualified Immunity Regardless, we have no doubt that Cronin, the sole defendant in this case, is entitled to qualified immunity. … Katz, 533 U.S. 194, 201 (2001) (violation of constitutional right is threshold question in qualified immunity analysis).3 Nonetheless, even if a constitutional right is clearly established, the defendant is

Mellott v. Heemer

161 F.3d 117 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Nov 5, 1998

On appeal, the marshals contend that the district court erred by refusing to grant summary judgment in their favor on grounds of qualified immunity. … The marshals are entitled to qualified immunity if, at the time they acted, they reasonably could have believed that their conduct did not violate the plaintiffs' clearly established constitutional rights.

Rockette

District Court, N.D. Mississippi · Mar 13, 2026

To rebut a qualified immunity defense, the plaintiff must have “alleged a violation of a constitutional right and whether the right at issue was ‘clearly established’ at the time of the alleged violation.” Cope v. … Sheehan, 575 U.S. 600, 613 (2015) (“Qualified immunity is no immunity at all if clearly established law can simply be defined as the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures.”).

Rish v. Johnson

131 F.3d 1092 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Dec 18, 1997

Government officials performing discretionary functions are entitled to qualified immunity from liability for civil damages to the extent that “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … that the official maintains his conduct did not violate clearly established law.

Charles W. v. Maul

214 F.3d 350 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jun 5, 2000

Defendants moved to dismiss plaintiffs complaint asserting qualified immunity, a defense that depends upon whether the right plaintiff asserts is so clearly established that defendants should have known it. … But whether qualified immunity applies depends on whether the right violated was clearly established. See Harlow, 457 U.S. at 818 , 102 S.Ct. 2727 .

Back v. Hall

537 F.3d 552 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 11, 2008

But the court denied the defendants’ request for qualified immunity on Back’s political-affiliation claims, holding that Back had adequately alleged a clearly established constitutional violation. … only whether the complaint “adequately alleges the commission of acts that violated clearly established law,” Mitchell v.

New Jersey v. New York

526 U.S. 589 · Supreme Court of the United States · May 17, 1999

Tanner Griggs v. Charley Brewer

841 F.3d 308 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Oct 28, 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 … Because our analysis is under the defense of qualified immunity, the question is whether Brewer’s conduct was clearly unreasonable in the light of clearly established law.

Huey P. McDuffie v. W.J. Estelle, Jr.

935 F.2d 682 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jul 15, 1991

We therefore hold that Ruiz does not foreclose relitigation of the due process issue via the Committee officials’ qualified immunity plea. 10 (ii) Clearly Established Law — Disciplinary Proceedings Thus, we must look to see … Cannatella, 810 F.2d 1363, 1374 (5th Cir.1987) (qualified immunity accorded to official insofar as conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known

Mondrea Vinning-El v. Scott Long, Correctional Officer, David Reid, Correctional Officer, and John Doe, Sergeant and Lieutenant

482 F.3d 923 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Mar 27, 2007

immunity, and Vinning-El appeals. … We agree with their concession since it was clearly established well before 2001 that the conditions Vinning-El describes, if true, deprived him of the “minimal civilized measure of life’s necessities.” See Rhodes v.

Suttles v. Roy

75 So. 3d 90 · Supreme Court of Alabama · May 21, 2010

Is it a question of law for the court (as is the similar defense of qualified immunity in federal actions under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 ) or a question of fact for the jury whether Suttles is entitled to such immunity? … Floyd, 667 So.2d 56, 64 (Ala.1995) (“The question whether a public official is entitled to qualified immunity is one to be decided as a matter of law.”).

Roe v. Sherry

91 F.3d 1270 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jul 31, 1996

He also contends the officers are not entitled to qualified immunity. DISCUSSION A. … A fundamental inquiry in a qualified immunity analysis is “whether the plaintiff has asserted a violation of a constitutional right at all.” Siegert v.

Caron v. Silvia

32 Mass. App. Ct. 271 · Massachusetts Appeals Court · Mar 23, 1992

entitled to a defense of qualified immunity from liability, and judgment was entered in their favor. *273 The judge correctly set forth the scope of immunity protecting the defendants, sued as individuals, for discretionary … Consistent with the reasons underlying the qualified immunity defense, it was important that the immunity issue be resolved at the earliest possible stage of litigation, preferably before any discovery, on a motion to dismiss

Halcomb v. Woods

767 F. Supp. 2d 123 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 3, 2011

Woods’ conduct to be in accordance with clearly established law, see Halcomb v. … He consequently has failed to show that he is entitled to qualified immunity. V.

Sylvan Plowright v. Miami Dade County

102 F.4th 1358 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jun 5, 2024

The district court dismissed Plowright’s complaint, con- cluding among other things that Cordova was entitled to qualified immunity because he did not violate any clearly established right when he … The right in question was clearly established. Plausibly alleging a constitutional violation is insufficient on its own to overcome qualified immunity.

A. D. v. State of Calif. Highway Patrol

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Apr 3, 2013

The Court then rejected the notion that the law, defined at such a level of generality, was “clearly established” for qualified immunity purposes. … Markgraf is not entitled to qualified immunity, because Plaintiffs have shown that he violated the foregoing clearly established law.

Koser v. County of Price

834 F. Supp. 305 · District Court, W.D. Wisconsin · Oct 7, 1993

OPINION Qualified immunity I begin with defendants’ contention that the individual defendants are entitled to qualified immunity because their arrests of plaintiff did not violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional … I conclude that it is necessary to reserve a ruling on the issue of qualified immunity until after trial.