Case law

Guillemard-Ginorio v. Contreras-Gomez

585 F.3d 508 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Oct 29, 2009

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 … "In administering the Court’s test, this circuit has tended to list separately the two sub-parts of the 'clearly established' prong along with the first prong and, as a result, has articulated the qualified immunity test

People Ex Rel. Feuer v. Nestdrop, LLC

245 Cal. App. 4th 664 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 14, 2016

Such a prohibition in no way threatens the continued existence of those medical marijuana businesses that qualify for limited immunity. … After explaining that Proposition D will ban all medical marijuana businesses unless they qualify for immunity, and after summarizing the conditions for immunity, the impartial summary describes the specific exemptions from

Jennings v. Patton

718 F. Supp. 2d 757 · District Court, S.D. Mississippi · Feb 23, 2010

As Patton notes, qualified immunity protects public officials acting within the scope of their official duties from civil liability so long as “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitu *763 … Patton argues in his motion that he is entitled to qualified immunity since Jennings cannot establish any constitutional violation.

Rheuark v. Shaw

477 F. Supp. 897 · District Court, N.D. Texas · Aug 31, 1979

, and claims of qualified immunity for court reporters. … Qualified Immunity I have previously held that Dallas County has not established its qualified immunity defense and therefore it is liable for attorneys fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988 .

Griffin v. Strong

739 F. Supp. 1496 · District Court, D. Utah · May 14, 1990

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY Plaintiffs seek summary judgment on defendant Strong’s affirmative defense of qualified immunity. … or inconsistent with that “clearly established” law.

Jones v. City of Cincinnati

521 F.3d 555 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 4, 2008

Police enjoy qualified immunity unless (1) the facts alleged show that the police violated a constitutional right; and (2) the right was clearly established. Saucier v. … We have already rejected defendants’ contention that the officers should receive qualified immunity.

Wright v. South Arkansas Regional Health Center, Inc.

800 F.2d 199 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Sep 2, 1986

violation of clearly established law.” … If properly supported, such an allegation could make out a violation of clearly established law and might defeat a motion for summary judgment on the ground of qualified immunity.

Hydrick v. Hunter

449 F.3d 978 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jun 1, 2006

Thus, there are two bodies of law from which we might draw "clearly established" law for qualified immunity purposes: first, where the SVPs claim a violation of a right that is clearly established even in the prison context … established" law for qualified immunity purposes: first, where the SVPs claim a violation of a right that is clearly established even in the prison context, and second, where the SVPs claim a violation of a right that is

Morales v. Toledo

638 F. Supp. 2d 168 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Apr 27, 2009

Qualified Immunity 8 This Court will now discuss whether the doctrine of Qualified Immunity bars Plaintiffs claims against Colon. 9 Qualified immunity is a judge-made doctrine that “allows public officials to perform discretionary … taken violated that clearly established constitutional right.”

Sepatis v. City and County of San Francisco

217 F. Supp. 2d 992 · District Court, N.D. California · Aug 15, 2002

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity shields public officials from liability for civil damages so long as their conduct does “not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … clearly established at the time of the violation.

Glenn v. City of Tyler

242 F.3d 307 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Feb 22, 2001

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY Qualified immunity protects government officials who perform discretionary functions from liability “unless their conduct violates clearly established statutory or constitutional … established law.”

Preschooler II v. Clark County School Board of Trustees

479 F.3d 1175 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Mar 20, 2007

of clearly established law. … Government officials do not enjoy qualified immunity from civil damages if their conduct violates “clearly established constitutional or statutory rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v.

Anna Mustafa v. City of Chicago

442 F.3d 544 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Mar 23, 2006

The defendants were protected by qualified immunity. … Qualified immunity protects officers performing discretionary functions from civil liability so long as their conduct does not violate dearly established statutory or constitutional rights that a reasonable person would know

Langworthy v. Dean

37 F. Supp. 2d 417 · District Court, D. Maryland · Feb 8, 1999

As there is not a clearly established constitutional right to have claims of criminal activity by a private actor investigated, the doctrine of qualified immunity will bar these claims. 4 Plaintiff argues that his fight to … As the treaties do not provide the Plaintiff with a clearly established right to have his claims investigated and prosecuted, all of the Defendants are protected from suit by qualified immunity. 6 V As mentioned previously

Walsh v. Ward

757 F. Supp. 959 · District Court, C.D. Illinois · Mar 1, 1991

Qualified Immunity Defendants’ final argument in support of their motion to dismiss is that, to the extent they are sued in their individual capacities, they are immune from liability pursuant to the doctrine of qualified … In short, the “qualified immunity analysis entails a purely objective inquiry to determine whether at the time of the alleged illegal act, the right asserted by the plaintiff was clearly established in the particular factual

Julius L. Finkelstein v. Louis P. Bergna

881 F.2d 702 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Aug 2, 1989

I An official is entitled to qualified immunity when the official’s conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. … The district court correctly concluded that Finkelstein alleged a violation of clearly established law and we accordingly affirm the denial of qualified immunity on the liberty interest claim.

Claude E. Woods v. Larry Smith

60 F.3d 1161 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Aug 15, 1995

whether the plaintiff has asserted the violation of a clearly established constitutional right. … Although the Court recently emphasized that denials of eleventh amendment immunity, like denials of qualified immunity, fall within the limited category of cases that warrant collateral review under Cohen v.

K. J. v. Jackson

127 F.4th 1239 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Feb 11, 2025

Defendants were not entitled to qualified immunity because the unlawfulness of their conduct was clearly established in Goss v. Lopez, 419 U.S. 565 (1975). … We hold that Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity because the unlawfulness of their conduct was clearly established in Goss.

Christopher Lockhart v. Siloam Springs, Arkansas

Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jun 10, 2026

This is a two-pronged inquiry: “In a § 1983 action, an officer is entitled to qualified immunity unless: (1) the officer’s conduct violated a constitutional right, and (2) that right was clearly established.” … Emmons, 586 U.S. 38, 42 (2019) (“The clearly established right must be defined with specificity. This Court has repeatedly told courts not to define clearly established law at a high level of generality.”

Benefield v. C.O. McDowall

241 F.3d 1267 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Mar 5, 2001

upon which relief can be granted and on qualified immunity grounds. … A denial of qualified immunity that accepts the plaintiff’s version of the facts and concludes that given those facts, the defendant violated clearly established law is immediately appealable because it presents for appellate