Case law

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.

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.

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.

Baird v. Holton

806 F. Supp. 2d 53 · District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 22, 2011

The doctrine of qualified immunity “shields a government official from civil liability if his conduct ‘does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known … See Ali, 2011 WL 2462851, at *4 (qualified immunity protects a government official from civil liability when his actions do not violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person

Hart v. O'Brien

127 F.3d 424 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Nov 6, 1997

Generally speaking, qualified immunity protects government officials performing discretionary functions from civil liability under federal law unless their conduct violates a “clearly established- [federal] statutory or constitutional … One important difference, however, is that official immunity does not incorporate the requirement that the plaintiff show the violation of a clearly established 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.

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.”

Parrish v. Nikolits

86 F.3d 1088 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jul 3, 1996

Once a public official or employee defendant raises a qualified immunity defense, the "plaintiffs bear the burden of showing that the federal "rights' allegedly violated were "clearly established.' " … Plaintiffs also contend that Nikolits is not entitled to qualified immunity, because the Elrod and Branti decisions clearly established the constitutional rule of law that Nikolits' actions violated.

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.

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

Sloman v. Tadlock

21 F.3d 1462 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Apr 14, 1994

Government officials such as police officers are not absolutely immune from suit, but rather only “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … The determination of qualified immunity necessitates three inquiries: (1) the identification of the specific right allegedly violated; (2) the determination of whether that right- was so “clearly established” as to alert

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.

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.”

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.

Cruz v. Green

352 F. Supp. 3d 1213 · District Court, S.D. Florida · Jan 7, 2019

DISCUSSION Captain Green argues that she is entitled to qualified immunity because she acted within the scope of her official duties and did not violate any clearly established statutory or constitutional rights. … See Callahan , 555 U.S. at 241 , 129 S.Ct. 808 (permitting district courts to evaluate whether § 1983 defendants violated clearly established law as the initial step in a qualified immunity analysis).

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.

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

Shoop v. Dauphin County

766 F. Supp. 1327 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 22, 1991

Courts have granted public officials performing discretionary functions qualified immunity from civil liability “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights which a reasonable … Shoop’s arrest, the facts which are established without contradiction do not establish probable cause or reasonable belief in probable cause on the part of the deputies sufficient to award qualified immunity for the arrest