Case law

Goldsmith v. Snohomish County

558 F. Supp. 2d 1140 · District Court, W.D. Washington · Feb 15, 2008

Katz, 533 U.S. 194 , 200-01, 121 S.Ct. 2151 , 150 L.Ed.2d 272 (2001) (qualified immunity is an immunity from suit). Saucier established a two-step analysis of qualified immunity. … At step two, immunity attaches if the officer was reasonably mistaken and/or if the constitutional right was not clearly established. 1.

Fogel v. Collins

531 F.3d 824 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jun 27, 2008

Police officers performing discretionary functions within the scope of their employment have qualified immunity from civil suit as long as “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights … A two-step analysis guides our qualified immunity inquiry.

Matthews v. ALABAMA AGR. AND MECHANICAL UNIV.

787 So. 2d 691 · Supreme Court of Alabama · May 26, 2000

Matthews alleges that the university employees violated "clearly established Constitutional and statutory rights," that they "exceed[ed] the scope of their statutory and administrative authority," and that they acted willfully … or to qualified/substantive/ discretionary-function immunity.

Sauls v. Montgomery County

18 S.W.3d 310 · Texas Court of Appeals, 9th District (Beaumont) · May 18, 2000

Therefore, in view of the confusion regarding the terms, “official immunity” and “qualified immunity,” it is not clear from the record that appellees presented the affirmative defense of “qualified immunity” to the trial … Thus, we do not consider the merit of “qualified immunity” as a ground for summary judgment in favor of Williams, individually.

Brindley v. Best

192 F.3d 525 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Sep 22, 1999

Qualified Immunity Government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional … clearly established rights.

López-Quiñones v. Puerto Rico National Guard

526 F.3d 23 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · May 21, 2008

Finkel, 445 U.S. 507 , 100 S.Ct. 1287 , 63 L.Ed.2d 574 (1980), and that in any event, defendants were entitled to qualified immunity because any such protection was not clearly established at the time of Lopez’ termination … Still remaining is the question whether his status was clearly established at the time of his termination.

Steele v. Department of Corrections

215 Mich. App. 710 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Apr 29, 1996

Consequently, Stone was entitled to qualified immunity under Ross v Consumers Power Co (On Rehearing), 420 Mich 567, 592 ; 363 NW2d 641 (1984). 3 Furthermore, plaintiff’s claim under 42 USC 1983 fails because he has *717 … not established deliberate indifference on Stone’s part.

State ex rel. Grant County Commission v. Judge Nelson

West Virginia Supreme Court · Mar 23, 2021

Prince George’s County, Md., 309 F.3d 224, 229 (4th Cir. 2002) (“Because qualified immunity is an immunity from having to litigate, as contrasted with an immunity from liability … Traditional appellate review of a qualified immunity ruling cannot achieve the intended goal of an immunity ruling: “the right not to be subject to the burden of trial.”

Belcher v. Oliver

898 F.2d 32 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Mar 12, 1990

We disagree and hold defendants entitled to qualified immunity on these claims because they committed no violation of clearly established constitutional law. In so holding, we reverse the judgment of the district court. … The individual officers are thus entitled to qualified immunity on the above claims.

J. Chris Lane v. Kentucky Department of Corrections

Court of Appeals of Kentucky · Sep 19, 2025

Qualified Immunity. … first addressing the Appellees’ qualified immunity arguments.

Maureen Tierney, for Herself and as Mother of Philip T. Newton, Patrick J. Newton v. Joel R. Davidson Thomas E. Williams, State of Vermont

133 F.3d 189 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jan 7, 1998

him to believe that his action did not violate clearly established law. … “A qualified immunity defense is established if (a) the defendant’s action did not violate clearly established law, or (b) it was objectively reasonable for the defendant to believe that his action did not violate such law

William Donta, Jr. v. Thomas Hooper Charles F. Hunter Larry Brooks Floyd Rose Jeff Altherr Jack Morgan James Mannering Anthony Robinson, State of Ohio

774 F.2d 716 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Oct 11, 1985

If the law which the defendant is alleged to have violated is clearly established, then the qualified immunity defense should fail and discovery should proceed. … We also, however, find no reason to disturb the verdict that the officers were entitled to qualified immunity because they did not violate a clearly established federal rule by arresting Donta on the basis of the teletype

Brandy Hamilton v. Nathaniel Turner

845 F.3d 659 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jan 12, 2017

Kindred moved for summary judgment, arguing that he was entitled to qualified immunity because at the time of the incident, bystander liability was not clearly established in the Fifth Circuit in cases not involving excessive … DISCUSSION We have jurisdiction to review a district court’s denial of qualified immunity “only to the extent that the appeal concerns the purely legal question whether the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity

Maresca v. County of Bernalillo

804 F.3d 1301 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Oct 22, 2015

On cross- motions for summary judgment, the district court held that the officers were entitled to qualified immunity because they had not violated clearly established Fourth Amendment standards. … Because the reasonableness inquiry overlaps with the qualified immunity 21  analysis, a qualified immunity defense is of less value when raised in defense of

Wayne Ernest Barker v. Ben Norman and Jack Ballas

651 F.2d 1107 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jul 30, 1981

qualified immunity defenses. … The Scope of the Qualified Immunity-Defenses 1.

M.D. Ex Rel. Daniels v. Smith

504 F. Supp. 2d 1238 · District Court, M.D. Alabama · Aug 27, 2007

Clearly established In the Eleventh Circuit, “unless a controlling and factually similar case declares the official’s conduct unconstitutional, an excessive-force plaintiff can overcome qualified immunity only by showing … Under this test, the law is clearly established, and qualified immunity can be overcome, if the standards set forth in Graham and the Eleventh Circuit’s case law “inevitably lead every reasonable officer in [the defendant

Hill v. Taconic Developmental Disabilities Services Office

57 F. App'x 9 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jan 2, 2002

‘good faith’ qualified immunity cannot attach.” … ’t do it’ or that it was objectively reasonable for him to believe that his action did not violate clearly established law.”

Ann deWet v. G. Russell Rollyson, Jr.

Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Oct 2, 2025

Qualified immunity “shields public officials from civil liability [under § 1983] unless they violated a statutory or constitutional right that was clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct … For starters, “unpublished opinions [of this court] ‘cannot be considered in deciding whether particular conduct violated clearly established law for purposes of adjudging entitlement to qualified immunity

Dawkins v. Graham

50 F.3d 532 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Mar 14, 1995

Qualified immunity does not shield the officers from a lawsuit for damages if a reasonable officer would have known the officers’ actions violated clearly established law. Hummel-Jones v. … First, the law prohibiting the officers’ conduct was clearly established at the time of the raid.

Thomas v. Nicholson

21 V.I. 561 · Supreme Court of The Virgin Islands · Sep 20, 1985

; rather, he was only eligible for qualified immunity. … Even where the assistant commissioner was in the position of acting commissioner, he was still not deemed by the Court to be a “superior executive officer” and, therefore, could only claim a qualified immunity.