Case law

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.”

Vann v. City of Southaven, Mississippi

876 F.3d 133 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Nov 22, 2017

“A qualified immunity defense alters the usual summary judgment burden of proof. … “The . dispositive question is ‘whether the violative nature of particular conduct is clearly established.’ ” Mullenix v.

Mangino v. Incorporated Village of Patchogue

808 F.3d 951 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Dec 22, 2015

‐ immunity  grounds  because,  at  the  time  of  the  alleged  conduct,  although there was a clearly established right to be free from abuse  of  process  under  New  York  law,  there  was  no  clearly  established  right … We  need  not,  and  do  not,  resolve  this  confusion  here,  as  its  very  existence  establishes  that  Nudo  is  entitled  to  qualified  immunity.8  “[T]he  qualified  immunity  defense . . . provides  ample  protection

Oliver v. Smith

290 Mich. App. 678 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Nov 23, 2010

The wrist and hand injury is not clearly attributable to defendant alone and instead may just as fairly be attributed to plaintiff. … The Odom Court stated that employees enjoy a qualified right to immunity if (1) the employee’s challenged acts were undertaken during the course of employment and the employee was acting, or reasonably believed he or she

Brown v. Houston School District

704 So. 2d 1325 · Mississippi Supreme Court · Dec 18, 1997

Brown concedes that for a plaintiff to succeed in a § 1983 action, she must show the violation of a clearly established constitutional right under color of state law. She has not done so. … Qualified immunity, therefore, is not available as a defense. ¶ 22.

Scott Kampas v. City of St. Louis, Missouri

Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Oct 31, 2025

It found the officers were entitled to qualified immunity regarding the Plaintiffs’ unlawful seizure claim as it was not clearly established that the Plaintiffs’ arrests violated the Fourth Amendment. … An officer does not violate an “individual’s ‘clearly established’ rights for qualified immunity purposes if he nevertheless had arguable probable cause to make the arrest.” Brown, 40 F.4th at 901 (citation omitted).

Treon v. Whipple

212 F. Supp. 2d 285 · District Court, D. Vermont · Jul 9, 2002

“Qualified immunity protects a government official from suit for any actions that did not violate a clearly established constitutional right and those actions as to which the official had an objectively reasonable good faith … “The first inquiry to be made concerning qualified immunity is whether the plaintiff has ‘allegefd] the violation of a clearly established constitutional right’.” Id. (citing Siegert v.

William Cantrell v. DeKalb County

Court of Appeals of Tennessee · Jul 10, 1996

We have determined that the trial court erred because the undisputed facts demonstrate that the officers are entitled to qualified immunity because they acted reasonably and did not violate any of the church members’ clearly … THE QUALIFIED IMMUNITY DEFENSE The dispositive issue for this appeal is whether the law enforcement officials have presented undisputed facts demonstrating that they are entitled to qualified immunity as a matter

Leticia Rudolph v. Daniel Babinec

939 F.3d 742 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Sep 20, 2019

Qualified immunity shields government officials from individual liability if they did not violate a clearly established right “of which a reasonable person” in the same situation would have known. Harlow v. … is clearly established” (emphasis added)).

Drendolyn Sims v. Mike Stanton

706 F.3d 954 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Dec 3, 2012

Qualified Immunity In a claim for civil damages under § 1983, to avoid the bar of qualified immunity, the plaintiff must show that the officer violated a constitutional right and that the right was “clearly established … That Welsh leaves open the possibility for a “rare” exception to this rule does not mean that the rule was not clearly established at the time and does not change our qualified immunity analysis.

Ziccardi v. Commonwealth

109 Pa. Commw. 628 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 8, 1987

Federal courts have applied only a qualified immunity on behalf of Commonwealth officials in section 1983 claims. … Specifically, under the United States Supreme Court’s pronouncement in Wood, the immunity defense would be unavailable to the secretary if the constitutional rights which he allegedly infringed were clearly established at

Grossman v. Richards

722 A.2d 371 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Jan 13, 1999

P. 56(b) on the ground that no genuine issue of material fact existed and Grossman failed to establish the elements of his claims. … Madura, 474 A.2d 166 (Me.1984), can be read to suggest that only a qualified immunity was intended, it is incorrect.

Schreiner v. Hodge

504 P.3d 410 · Supreme Court of Kansas · Feb 18, 2022

But not every act involving an element of judgment will qualify for immunity. … In addition, the § 1983 plaintiff faces the towering barrier of qualified immunity.

Fidler v. City of Indianapolis

428 F. Supp. 2d 857 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Apr 20, 2006

A government official is not entitled to qualified immunity where the facts plaintiff alleges (1) reveal a constitutional violation (2) according to “clearly established” law at the time, meaning that a reasonable officer … Accordingly, qualified immunity is not available at this stage in the case. Morfin v.

Jamie Hamilton v. Gary T. Myers, Executive Director of the Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency

281 F.3d 520 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 10, 2002

Accordingly, any “objectively reasonable” action by a state officer, as assessed in the light of clearly established law at the time of the conduct at issue, will be insulated by qualified immunity. … Thus, even if a public officer has deprived the plaintiff of a federal right, qualified immunity will apply if an objectively reasonable official would not have understood, by referencing clearly established law, that his

Ellis v. City of Indianapolis

800 F. Supp. 733 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Jul 24, 1992

clearly established. … Qualified Immunity Defense Applies to Wynalda’s Conduct The question whether qualified immunity attaches to an officer’s conduct is always one for the judge to decide. Simkunas v.

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.

Henderson Amusement, Inc. v. Good

172 F. Supp. 2d 751 · District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Nov 2, 2001

Even if this officer’s purported conduct had violated a clearly established rule of law (which no one can argue that it did), he would still be entitled to immunity if he reasonably believed his conduct was lawful. … If it is undisputed that the right allegedly violated was clearly established at the time, the defendant asserting a qualified-immunity defense may still be immune from damages for violation of that right if, under the circumstances

Cummins v. Campbell

44 F.3d 847 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Dec 28, 1994

We hold that the Regents were entitled to qualified immunity because the constitutional law they allegedly violated was not clearly established at the time they briefly suspended authority to show the film. … However, the district court agreed with Appellees that the law Appellees allegedly violated was not clearly established and granted them summary judgment based on qualified immunity. A.

Jones v. Pandey

390 F. Supp. 2d 1371 · District Court, M.D. Georgia · Jul 14, 2005

On the other hand, if a violation could be made out on a favorable view of the parties’ submissions, the next sequential step is to ask whether the right was “clearly established” because qualified immunity inquiries have … In the Eleventh Circuit, for a right to be “clearly established” for purposes of qualified immunity, “the law must have earlier been developed in such a concrete *1377 and factually defined context to make it obvious to all