Case law

CHABAK v. Monroy

65 Cal. Rptr. 3d 641 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 10, 2007

This immunity is absolute for mandated reporters and qualified for other individuals who report child abuse (voluntary reporters). … Monroy’s statements to the police clearly arose from protected activity, as is established by the case on which Chabak, and ultimately the trial court, relied.

Aczel v. Labonia

92 F. App'x 17 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Feb 12, 2004

facts plaintiff invokes constitutional rights that were clearly established at the time of the event. … established at the time.

Lanman v. Hinson

529 F.3d 673 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 17, 2008

affirmative defense of qualified immunity. … Qualified immunity shields public officials who perform discretionary functions from tort liability, so long as their conduct does not violate clearly established rights viewed under the applicable constitutional standard

Karen Kelly Austin, Individually and as Natural Tutrix of Minors, Renee Chevelle Henry and Raenell Lynn Henry v. Ronald Borel and Janenne Trahan

830 F.2d 1356 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Dec 21, 1987

Qualified immunity shields only that conduct not violative of clearly established constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. 14 Absolute immunity, in contrast, precludes any action for damages, so … established law, a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal before the commencement of discovery.

Whitfield v. Municipality of Fajardo

279 F. Supp. 2d 115 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Aug 19, 2003

Government officials are generally immune from suit when their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory authority or constitutional rights, which a reasonable person should have known of at the time of the conduct … Second, these rights were clearly established at the time of the alleged violation.

Smothers v. Gibson

778 F.2d 470 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Nov 27, 1985

ANALYSIS Whether an official may prevail in his qualified immunity defense depends upon the “objective unreasonableness of [his] conduct as measured by reference to clearly established law.” … The Cummins Unit argues that it should be accorded qualified immunity from liability for damages because the law of prison visitor strip searches was not clearly established in 1981.

Orem v. Rephann

523 F.3d 442 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Apr 28, 2008

Hence, qualified immunity will shield Deputy Rephann from suit if “a reasonable officer” could have believed tasering Orem was lawful, in light of the clearly established law and the information Deputy Re-phann possessed … Rather, Deputy Rephann used the taser to punish or intimidate Orem — a use that is not objectively reasonable, is contrary to clearly established law, and not protected by qualified immunity. Y.

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.

Kellogg v. City of Gary

562 N.E.2d 685 · Indiana Supreme Court · Nov 8, 1990

qualified immunity defense depends upon the "objective reasonableness of [his] conduct as measured by reference to *704 clearly established law." … qualified immunity.

Greene v. Friend of the Court, Polk County

406 N.W.2d 433 · Supreme Court of Iowa · Apr 15, 1987

City of Independence, 445 U.S. 622 , 100 S.Ct. 1398 , 63 L.Ed.2d 673 (1980), serves, we believe, to abrogate any qualified immunity under the facts which plaintiff may be able to establish at trial. … We find that DHS is clearly an alter ego agency of the state of Iowa for purposes of sharing in its immunity. See Iowa Code § 25A.2(1).

Rhoades v. Clinkscale

Superior Court of Delaware · Jul 20, 2016

on the ground that a purported right was not clearly established, question of whether the purported right exists at without resolving the plied, [qualified immunity] protects all but the a>l?> all. … Thus, State Defendants argue that qualified immunity applies to Plaintiff’s claims against them, because Plaintiff has failed to identify a right to a particular procedure or protocol that has been clearly established by

Ransom v. Baltimore County

111 F. Supp. 2d 704 · District Court, D. Maryland · Aug 11, 2000

In assessing a claim for qualified immunity, the Court must: (i) identify the right allegedly violated; (ii) determine whether the constitutional right violated was clearly established at the time of the incident; and (iii … Because she is clearly protected by qualified privilege, the Court will not address her argument.

Clerkley v. Holcomb

121 F.4th 1359 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Nov 26, 2024

Our review is thus confined to qualified immunity’s two prongs: whether the facts “suffice to show a legal violation” and “whether that law was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation.” Id. … The district court correctly denied him qualified immunity, so we affirm. 8 Holcomb finally argues that the district court erred by implying that a jury could decide the issue of clearly established law

Gregg v. Ohio Department of Youth Services

661 F. Supp. 2d 842 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Sep 22, 2009

Telb, 831 F.2d 673 (6th Cir.1987), when the defense of qualified immunity is raised, a plaintiff must include in the pleadings factual allegations necessary to support the conclusion that the defendants violated clearly established … Gregg’s constitutional rights, it is unnecessary to reach the “clearly established” prong of qualified immunity as to these defendants. See Bukowski v. City of Akron, 326 F.3d 702, 708 (6th Cir.2003).

Wynn v. City of Lakeland

727 F. Supp. 2d 1309 · District Court, M.D. Florida · Jul 20, 2010

“Qualified immunity offers complete protection for government officials sued in their individual capacities if their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … To receive qualified immunity protection, the government official must first establish that he was acting within his discretionary authority at the time of the alleged violation. Cottone v.

Jane Doe v. Petaluma City School District

54 F.3d 1447 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · May 12, 1995

"On review of a denial of qualified immunity, '[w]e have jurisdiction only to decide if defendant's conduct violated ... clearly established [law].' " Pelletier v. … Because qualified immunity is an affirmative defense from suit, not merely from liability, "[u]nless the plaintiff's allegations state a claim of violation of clearly established law, a defendant pleading qualified immunity

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.

Hedrick v. Roberts

183 F. Supp. 2d 814 · District Court, E.D. Virginia · Sep 27, 2001

Qualified Immunity State actors, such as prison officials performing discretionary functions, enjoy qualified immunity if their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … In determining whether a state actor is entitled to qualified immunity, a court “must (1) identify the right allegedly violated, (2) determine whether the constitutional right was clearly established at the time of the incident

Colman v. Vasquez

142 F. Supp. 2d 226 · District Court, D. Connecticut · Mar 30, 2001

Colman’s Complaint does not allege a violation of clearly established law, they are entitled to qualified immunity. … established” for qualified immunity purposes.

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.”