Case law

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.

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.

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.

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

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.”

Jim Maxwell v. County of San Diego

697 F.3d 941 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Sep 13, 2012

Qualified immunity protects government officers “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known … To determine whether an officer is entitled to qualified immunity, we ask, in the order we choose, (1) whether the alleged misconduct violated a right and (2) whether the right was clearly established at the time of the alleged

Blue v. Koren

72 F.3d 1075 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Dec 26, 1995

Circuit in Martin, 812 F.2d at 1432 , "[t]he 'clearly established law' and 'objective reasonableness' facets of current qualified immunity doctrine tug in opposite directions where, as here, the 'clearly established law' … When such a motion is based on assertion of qualified immunity, the first issue is whether a clearly established right is at stake. See Siegert, 500 U.S. at 232 , 111 S.Ct. at 1793 .

Beverly Nettles-Nickerson v. John Free

687 F.3d 288 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 1, 2012

The district court, however, granted the officers’ motion for summary judgment, holding that they were entitled to qualified immunity because Nettles- Nickerson did not have “a clearly established constitutional right to … Qualified immunity is warranted even if a constitutional violation has occurred if the right violated was not clearly established, Estate of Carter v.

Greer v. Baker.

137 Haw. 249 · Hawaii Supreme Court · Feb 22, 2016

presiding over a lawsuit”), with id. at 868 (Qualified immunity is “[i]mmunity from civil liability for a public official who is performing a discretionary function, as long as the conduct does not violate clearly established … “The nature of qualified immunity doctrine bears on the difficulties of the problem, because [qualified] immunity frequently depends on the specific facts of a particular case.” 15A Wright & Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure

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

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

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.

Hoyland v. McMenomy

185 F. Supp. 3d 1111 · District Court, D. Minnesota · May 5, 2016

Qualified immunity protects government officers from § 1983 liability “unless the official’s conduct violates a clearly established constitutional or statutory right of which a reasonable person would have known.” … Thus, Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity on the basis that Hoy-land’s First Amendment right was not clearly established.

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.

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.

Johnson v. Johnson

385 F.3d 503 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Sep 8, 2004

immunity on the ground that Johnson had not alleged violations of rights that were clearly established. … Moreover, they would be entitled to qualified immunity unless clearly established law showed that their response was insufficient.

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.”

Reyes-Reyes v. Toledo-Davila

860 F. Supp. 2d 152 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · May 17, 2012

Qualified immunity, “an immunity from suit rather than a mere defense to liabilityU” Hunter v. … Here, Benitez is entitled to qualified immunity unless (1) “the facts alleged or shown by the plaintiff make out a violation of a constitutional right” and (2) such right was “ ‘clearly established’ at the time of the defendant

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

Vélez-Herrero v. Guzman

330 F. Supp. 2d 62 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Aug 13, 2004

Plaintiff Vélez counters that because her constitutional rights were clearly established at the time of the alleged violation, Defendant Alejandro is, therefore, not entitled to qualified immunity. … We use a three-part test to determine whether an officer is entitled to qualified immunity: (1) whether, as alleged, a constitutional violation has occurred; (2) whether the constitutional right was clearly established at