Case law

Marcavage v. National Park Service

666 F.3d 856 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Feb 2, 2012

The District Court then found that Saperstein and Crane were entitled to qualified immunity from both the First Amendment and the Fourth Amendment claims because Marcavage’s First Amendment rights were not clearly established … As noted above, to strip Saperstein and Crane of qualified immunity requires the violation of a clearly established constitutional right.

Ciampi v. City of Palo Alto

790 F. Supp. 2d 1077 · District Court, N.D. California · May 11, 2011

Qualified Immunity Doctrine 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 … The immunity inquiry, on the other hand, asks whether the right Plaintiff claims was clearly established. Id.

O'CONNELL v. Gorski

715 F. Supp. 1201 · District Court, W.D. New York · Mar 14, 1989

immunity from liability for civil damages inasmuch as their decision to dismiss the plaintiff did not violate any of his “clearly established” rights. 4 Harlow v. … It merely supports the con- *1206 elusion that the law was in fact not clearly established at the time of his dismissal and that, therefore, Gorski and NeMoyer are entitled to qualified immunity from civil damages.

Anderson v. City of Bellevue

862 F. Supp. 2d 1095 · District Court, W.D. Washington · Mar 23, 2012

Qualified Immunity 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 … was clearly established at the time of the violation.

Advisory Opinion to the Attorney General Re: Use of Marijuana for Certain Medical Conditions

132 So. 3d 786 · Supreme Court of Florida · Jan 27, 2014

We also conclude that the ballot title and summary comply with section 101.161(1) because they are not clearly and conclusively defective. … This limited immunity is necessary because, in the absence of such immunity, the mere act of prescribing marijuana, a controlled substance under Florida law, would result in civil or criminal liability or sanctions, which

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.

Searles v. Van Bebber

993 F. Supp. 1350 · District Court, D. Kansas · Jan 7, 1998

Defendants also claim that they are entitled to qualified immunity, which shields them from liability unless they violated clearly established constitutional or statutory norms. Anderson v. … Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity if their conduct was objectively reasonable in the light of clearly established law and the information which the possessed at the time of the alleged violation. Martin v.

Angela McCullough v. Ernest N. Finley, Jr.

907 F.3d 1324 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Oct 29, 2018

The Mayor and the Chiefs Enjoy Qualified and State-Agent Immunity from the Jailees’ Complaint. … “Qualified immunity shields government officials acting within their discretionary authority from liability unless the officials ‘violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person

Glenn W. Phelps, Jr. v. Robert M. Coy, Jr., Christin Stutes

286 F.3d 295 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 10, 2002

Coy’s qualified immunity motion. … A claim of qualified immunity presents two closely linked questions: whether the defendant violated the plaintiffs rights and whether those rights were clearly established at the time of the alleged violation.

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.

Baker v. Smiscik

49 F. Supp. 3d 489 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Sep 24, 2014

Embody, 695 F.3d at 581 . *501 Plaintiff fails to meet the clearly-established-right prong for the qualified immunity analysis. … Neither of these sources provides a basis for finding a clearly established constitutional right for purposes of qualified immunity. Barrett, 388 F.3d at 972.

Jorge E. Cancel Lugo v. Carlos Alvarado, Etc.

819 F.2d 5 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · May 26, 1987

The district court ruled that where the discovery was not directed solely at damage issues related to the qualified immunity defense (i.e., “matters of personal motivations, related to the subjective components of the qualified … The qualified immunity inquiry involves not only the question of "whether the legal norms allegedly violated by the defendant were clearly established at the time of the challenged actions,” Mitchell v.

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

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.

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.

Gorman v. Rensselaer Cnty.

910 F.3d 40 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Dec 6, 2018

entitled to qualified immunity. … The district court held that the Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity because the law was not clearly established that Gorman's complaint constituted protected speech.

Sack v. City of St. Louis

District Court, E.D. Missouri · Sep 30, 2025

“Qualified immunity shields officials from civil liability in § 1983 actions when their conduct ‘does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’” … Herron, 687 F.3d 971, 978 (8th Cir. 2012) (rejecting argument that the “clearly established right analysis” is limited to cases involving § 1983 and qualified immunity).

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