Case law

Mara v. Rilling

921 F.3d 48 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Apr 9, 2019

But  even  if  the  answer  is  yes,  or  not  definitively  no,  a  defendant  may  still  be  entitled  to  qualified  immunity  if  the  right  was  not  clearly  established  at  the  time  of  his  challenged actions … The district court still needed to address the second qualified  immunity  inquiry,  i.e.,  whether  the  rights  at  issue  were  clearly  established  in  the  context  presented,  such  that  every  reasonable  officer

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.

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).

Lazoda v. Maggy

900 F. Supp. 596 · District Court, N.D. New York · Oct 2, 1995

Qualified Immunity Principles Defendants have steadfastly asserted from the outset of the instant case that they enjoy qualified immunity from suit. … were then clearly established.” van Emrik v.

Brandt v. City of Westminster

300 F. Supp. 3d 1259 · District Court, D. Colorado · Mar 19, 2018

Qualified Immunity Defendants Esslinger and Rush assert they are entitled to qualified immunity, "which shields public officials from damages actions unless their conduct was unreasonable in light of clearly established law … was clearly established at the time of the defendant's unlawful conduct."

Michael M. Gorman v. Renault Robinson, George C. Cramer, and William T. Salem

977 F.2d 350 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Oct 9, 1992

In a motion for summary judgment, the defendants argued that the doctrine of qualified immunity shielded them from suit. … The Supreme Court has made clear that qualified immunity is an immunity from suit rather than a defense to liability. Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 529 , 105 S.Ct. 2806, 2817 , 86 L.Ed.2d 411 (1985).

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.

Isengard v. New Mexico Public Education Department

708 F. Supp. 2d 1190 · District Court, D. New Mexico · Sep 30, 2009

Qualified immunity shields government officials from liability where “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Pearson v. … Qualified immunity shields state officials from liability “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v.

Jacquelyn M. Chagnon v. Griffin Bell

642 F.2d 1248 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Oct 14, 1980

defense only in an area of “clearly established” law. … Rather, the question is whether the conduct complained of transgressed “clearly established” constitutional limits.

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

Jack G. Kelly v. Charles C. Foti, Jr., City of New Orleans, John Doe, and Jane Roe

77 F.3d 819 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Apr 29, 1996

Denial of summary judgment on the ground of qualified immunity is immediately appealable to the extent that the question on appeal is whether the undisputed facts amount to a violation of clearly established law. … a qualified immunity defense.

Hare Ex Rel. Hare v. City of Corinth

135 F.3d 320 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Mar 5, 1998

The bifurcated test for qualified immunity is quite familiar: (1) whether the plaintiff has alleged a violation of a clearly established constitutional right; and, (2) if so, whether the defendant’s … The second prong of the qualified immunity test is better understood as two separate inquiries: whether the allegedly violated constitutional rights were clearly established at the time of the incident;

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.

Porter v. Ascension Parish School Board

393 F.3d 608 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Dec 10, 2004

challenged state action was unconstitutional.”13 Even if we find that the right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation, however, a defendant will still be entitled to qualified immunity if … Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 640 (1987); Barrow, 332 F.3d at 846 (second question in qualified immunity analysis is whether the “constitutional right was clearly established when the violation supposedly occured”). 13

Natasha Thomas Susan Gibbs and Edwina Lewis v. Ann Cohen Glenn Craig James Embry and Susan Fischer, in Their Individual Capacities

304 F.3d 563 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 23, 2002

a given set of facts violates clearly established law.” … Qualified Immunity We must also decide whether, in light of clearly established law applicable on the date of the eviction, a reasonable officer would have believed that Defendants’ conduct deprived Plaintiffs of their Fourth

Brandee Buschmann v. Kansas City Police Department

76 F.4th 1081 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Aug 10, 2023

The court ruled that Beck was entitled to qualified immunity, and dismissed the claim against the Board on the ground that no individual officer was liable. … Qualified immunity shields a police officer from suit unless his conduct violated a clearly established right of the plaintiff. See Harlow v.

Creighton v. Anderson

724 F. Supp. 654 · District Court, D. Minnesota · Jul 14, 1989

Qualified immunity is designed to protect from liability government officials who perform discretionary functions "if their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … First, a government official is immune from liability unless the constitutional right which has *658 allegedly been violated was "clearly established." Id.

Lightner v. Tremont Auto Auction, Inc.

564 F. Supp. 1112 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Apr 22, 1983

The Court in Butz established a qualified immunity for government officials performing discretionary functions. Id. at 504, 98 S.Ct. at 2909. … Lash, 687 F.2d 996, 1007 (7th Cir.1982) (question of fact whether defendant officials should reasonably have known that their conduct would violate clearly established constitutional norms).

Gaubert v. Gray

747 F. Supp. 40 · District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 27, 1990

Violations of “Clearly Established” Rights In Harlow , the Supreme Court held that to overcome an assertion of qualified immunity the constitutional rights alleged by plaintiff to have been violated must have been “clearly … action is a violation) violates a clearly established right.”

Washpon v. Parr

561 F. Supp. 2d 394 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jun 4, 2008

unreasonable in light of clearly established law. … If it was not reasonable, then for purposes of determining qualified immunity we next ask the purely legal question of whether the law was sufficiently established that a reasonable officer would know his conduct was unlawful