Case law

J. J. v. City of San Diego

42 F.4th 990 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Nov 15, 2021

Prong one of this test is therefore not satisfied, and qualified immunity applies on that basis. Prong two, the clearly established prong, confirms this result. … Thus, unless J.K.J. can show that on the date the officers encountered Jenkins, it was clearly established that their conduct was unlawful, qualified immunity applies also under prong two.

Pike v. Budd

133 F.4th 74 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Mar 28, 2025

Pike filed a § 1983 action against Budd, which the district court dismissed, finding that Budd was entitled to qualified immunity because case law did not clearly establish that Budd would violate the Equal Protection … Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity protects reasonable government officials from civil liability when their conduct does not violate clearly established constitutional or statutory rights.

Eastburn v. Regional Fire Protection Authority

7 Cal. Rptr. 3d 552 · California Supreme Court · Dec 18, 2003

In our view, Zepeda correctly held that the section indeed applies, and provides a qualified or limited immunity to such persons. … shielded by the qualified immunity of Health and Safety Code section 1799.107.

Thornton v. Kaplan

937 F. Supp. 1441 · District Court, D. Colorado · Jun 7, 1996

Accordingly, in the absence of such a clearly established constitutional or statutory right, defendant Skougstad is entitled to qualified immunity on plaintiffs Section 1983 free speech claim. … required in the qualified immunity analysis.

Tucker v. Cty Richmond, KY

388 F.3d 216 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Oct 28, 2004

The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials who perform discretionary functions from civil liability “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of … Assuming that “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.

Thorpe v. Weaver

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jul 8, 2026

To overcome qualified immunity, plaintiffs must show: “(1) that the [officer] violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct.” … Plaintiffs cannot show that Weaver violated clearly established law. Even if Weaver learned of Boykin’s distress, we still grant her qualified immunity.

Brewster v. Shasta County

27 F. App'x 908 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Dec 28, 2001

in which the determination of qualified immunity depends on disputed issues of material fact.” … “clearly established right” violated by their suggestive conduct in relation to the photo array and live lineup.

Sutton v. Tompkins County

617 F. Supp. 2d 84 · District Court, N.D. New York · Sep 25, 2007

Under federal law, “[t]he defense of qualified immunity shields governmental officials from civil liability if the official’s conduct did not *98 violate constitutional rights that were clearly established at the pertinent … When qualified immunity is asserted in a motion for summary judgment, of course, the facts material to the claim of qualified immunity must not be genuinely disputed. See Cecere, 967 F.2d at 829 .

Baxter v. Vigo County School Corporation

26 F.3d 728 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jun 14, 1994

By now, it is well established that certain government officials enjoy a qualified immunity from suit. … To determine the applicability of qualified immunity, the defendants' actions must be compared to what a reasonable official would believe was required in light of the clearly established legal rules.... 27 Casteel v.

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.

Connie Robison v. Susan R. Via and Harold Harrison

821 F.2d 913 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jun 17, 1987

There are a number of ways in which a defendant official may establish a defense of qualified immunity under § 1983. … For example, it has long been clearly established that an arrest without probable cause is a constitutional violation.

Kwai Fun Wong v. United States

373 F.3d 952 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jun 25, 2004

No doubt we do over the qualified immunity issue. … Whether the Law Was Clearly Established 108 Even where a constitutional violation has occurred, whether an official asserting qualified immunity may be held liable "generally turns on the `objective legal reasonableness'

McGregor v. Greer

748 F. Supp. 881 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 27, 1990

Therefore, in order to determine whether qualified immunity attaches, we must first determine whether plaintiff alleges violation of any clearly established rights. … Thus, the Court concludes that plaintiff did not have a “clearly established” right to privacy in the lobby of her apartment. Therefore, defendants are entitled to qualified immunity on this issue.

Smith v. Blodgett

798 F. Supp. 637 · District Court, E.D. Washington · Sep 8, 1992

Defendant moved to dismiss this Complaint on the basis of qualified immunity, asserting that the law was not clearly established that Washington’s administrative segregation regulations created a liberty interest protected … The court did not reach the issue of qualified immunity.

Avery v. King

110 F.3d 12 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 1, 1997

“Government officials performing discretionary functions are afforded qualified immunity, shielding them from civil damages, as long as their conduct ‘does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights … Therefore, Officer King was entitled to qualified immunity if “ ‘a reasonable officer could have believed [Avery’s arrest] to be lawful, in light of clearly established law and the information the [arresting] officers possessed

Blair v. City of Cleveland

148 F. Supp. 2d 919 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Sep 8, 2000

is a public official asserting a qualified immunity defense. … However, assuming the officers succeed in their appeal of this court’s order, it could be determined that a reasonable officer would not have known that his actions violated a clearly-established right, and that the officers

S.P. v. Newark Police Department

428 N.J. Super. 210 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Sep 27, 2012

. 2C:25-21, and whether the officers acted in good faith to afford them qualified immunity under the PDVA, N.J.S.A. 2C:25~22. … Based on this determination, we need not reach the City’s defense of qualified immunity under the PDVA. I.

International Islamic Community of Masjid Baytulkhaliq, Inc. v. United States

981 F. Supp. 352 · District Court, Virgin Islands · Aug 29, 1997

Qualified immunity exists where the federal agents' conduct "does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of *306 which a reasonable person would have known." Harlow v. … Generally, 'good faith' or qualified immunity attaches in a suit for civil damages when the conduct of the government employee performing a discretionary function "does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional

Christopher MACKINNEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Garon NIELSEN, Dash Butler, Al Littles, and City of Berkeley, Defendants-Appellees

69 F.3d 1002 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Nov 6, 1995

Whether a defendant is entitled to qualified immunity turns on a two part inquiry: “(1) Was the law governing the official’s conduct clearly established? … Ninth Circuit law also clearly establishes the right verbally to challenge the police. In Duran v.

Tenenbaum v. Williams

193 F.3d 581 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Oct 13, 1999

Government officials “enjoy qualified immunity when they perform discretionary functions if either (1) their conduct did not violate clearly established rights of which a reasonable person would have known, or (2) it was … Whatever van Emrik “clearly established” therefore could not have guided the behavior of the individual defendants here and they are entitled to qualified immunity, as the district court held. IV.