Case law

Tremain Spivey, Shirley Spivey, as Next Friend for Tremain Spivey v. Michael Elliott, Lynn Crothers, Wilma Davis, Carolyn Mitchell

29 F.3d 1522 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 26, 1994

The defendants are entitled to qualified *1527 immunity if that law was not clearly established at the time. We hold it was not. … Because this right was not clearly established at the time this suit was brought, the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. We affirm the district court’s grant of defendants’ motion for summary judgment.

Rafael Navarro v. Sherman Block

250 F.3d 729 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · May 11, 2001

After reviewing the legal standards for qualified immunity, the court held: 9 [T]he law is not clearly established that a policy of indemnifying punitive damage awards violates constitutional rights . . . . … Though much of the analysis under qualified immunity and the merits of a §§ 1983 claim overlaps, the issue of whether a right is "clearly established " is relevant only to qualified immunity. 11 Regardless, the explicit holding

Ortega v. City of Kansas City, Kansas

659 F. Supp. 1201 · District Court, D. Kansas · Mar 18, 1987

Qualified Immunity. Defendants argue that the court erred in holding that the individual defendants were not entitled to the defense of qualified immunity. … We recognize that in the ordinary case, an official’s violation of clearly established state statutes does not deprive an official of qualified immunity. See Davis v.

H. John Putnam v. Diane Keller

332 F.3d 541 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jun 18, 2003

summary judgment motion premised on qualified immunity. … is clearly established.

Claude E. Woods v. Larry Smith

60 F.3d 1161 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Aug 15, 1995

whether the plaintiff has asserted the violation of a clearly established constitutional right. … Although the Court recently emphasized that denials of eleventh amendment immunity, like denials of qualified immunity, fall within the limited category of cases that warrant collateral review under Cohen v.

Bonamo v. Betz

92 Mass. App. Ct. 1122 · Massachusetts Appeals Court · Jan 19, 2018

The doctrine of qualified immunity under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012), applies equally to MCRA claims, Duarte v. … As a matter of law then, the judge properly concluded that the defendant was entitled to qualified immunity under the MCRA. Judgment affirmed .

Greenwood v. of New York

163 F.3d 119 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Dec 11, 1998

. § 1983 ; it did so on the ground that the officials had qualified immunity. 1 We disagree with the court's conclusion that Greenwood's property right in his clinical staff privileges was not clearly established and that … "Even defendants who violate [clearly established] constitutional rights enjoy a qualified immunity that protects them from liability for damages unless it is further demonstrated that their conduct was unreasonable under

Elba Estrada-Adorno v. Jose R. Gonzalez, Etc.

861 F.2d 304 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Nov 10, 1988

He is immune unless, at the time he took action, the right at issue was clearly established. Anderson v. … Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818-19 , 102 S.Ct. 2727, 2738-39 , 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982) (state official is immune from damages liability unless his action violates a right that was “clearly established” at the time the action

Johnson v. City of Chester

10 F. Supp. 2d 482 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 31, 1998

Qualified and Legislative Immunity Defendants next seek qualified immunity for Police Commissioner Butler, and both legislative and qualified immunity for Mayor Wilson, for their alleged actions. … Such rights are among the most well-known and clearly-established in our Constitution.

Shoop v. Dauphin County

766 F. Supp. 1327 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 22, 1991

Courts have granted public officials performing discretionary functions qualified immunity from civil liability “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights which a reasonable … Shoop’s arrest, the facts which are established without contradiction do not establish probable cause or reasonable belief in probable cause on the part of the deputies sufficient to award qualified immunity for the arrest

Fleming v. State University of New York

502 F. Supp. 2d 324 · District Court, E.D. New York · Aug 6, 2007

clearly established legal rules then in effect.” … complains violated clearly established law.”

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Hickey v. Hayse

188 F. Supp. 2d 722 · District Court, W.D. Kentucky · Dec 17, 2001

A government official enjoys qualified immunity if his conduct does not violate clearly established constitutional rights of which a reasonable person should have known. Williams v. … To find that an officer has violated the clearly established constitutional right negating the defense of qualified immunity, the trial court must find binding precedent establishing the right.