Case law

Fordyce v. City of Seattle

840 F. Supp. 784 · District Court, W.D. Washington · Jul 29, 1993

Qualified immunity is “an immunity from suit rather than a mere defense to liability” and “ordinarily should be decided by the court long before trial.” Hunter v. … The Ninth Circuit has recently held: When a law enforcement officer asserts qualified immunity from liability for Fourth Amendment violations, the district court must determine whether, in light of clearly established principles

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.

Don Blankenship v. Joe Manchin, Iii, in His Individual Capacity and in His Official Capacity as Governor of the State of West Virginia

471 F.3d 523 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Dec 20, 2006

Finding a constitutional violation of a clearly established right, the district court denied the application of qualified immunity. This appeal followed. II. … As Blankenship’s complaint alleges a constitutional violation of a clearly established right, qualified immunity does not attach to the Governor’s actions.

GUILLEMARD GINORIO v. Contreras

409 F. Supp. 2d 101 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Jan 10, 2006

Qualified Immunity In their motion, the defendants argue that they are entitled to qualified *111 immunity in relation to plaintiffs’ due process claims. … immunity, the Court must consider “(1) whether plaintiffs allegations, if true, establish a constitutional violation; (2) whether that right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation; and (3) whether a

Humes v. Gilless

108 F. App'x 266 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 10, 2004

Thus, we may review “the legal question of qualified immunity, i.e., whether a given set of facts violates clearly established law.” Mattox v. City of Forest Park, 183 F.3d 515, 519 (6th Cir.1999). … Qualified Immunity “[Gjovernment officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional

Godman v. City of Fort Wright

234 S.W.3d 362 · Court of Appeals of Kentucky · Aug 31, 2007

The access is contingent upon the receipt of a report from a qualified traffic engineer, agreed upon by the Zoning Administrator, establishing that the special treatment will have no adverse affect on the roadway safety and … Nevertheless, the Godmans point out that there is no immunity for a discretionary act if it violates constitutional, statutory, or other clearly established rights, or if it is done willfully or maliciously with intent to

Joseph Frasure v. City of Wyoming, Ohio

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · May 5, 2026

Qualified Immunity Frasure challenges the magistrate judge’s finding that qualified immunity barred all three excessive force claims. … Because Frasure has not demonstrated a clearly established right relevant to this claim, “we begin and end with the second prong” of the qualified immunity analysis. Gordon v.

Bell v. Neukirch

376 F. Supp. 3d 989 · District Court, E.D. Missouri · Mar 21, 2019

When a party is asserting qualified immunity, "[t]he party asserting immunity always has the burden to establish the relevant predicate facts, and at the summary judgment stage, the nonmoving party is given the benefit of … Qualified immunity protects a police officer from liability in a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action unless the officer's conduct violated a clearly established constitutional or statutory right. Winslow v.

Campbell v. Alameida

295 F. App'x 130 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Sep 24, 2008

The district court properly determined that defendants were entitled to qualified immunity from Campbell’s Free Exercise and RLUIPA claims for damages, because defendants’ conduct did not violate clearly established law. … City of Alameda, 525 F.3d 903, 906 (9th Cir.2008) (“Under the defense of qualified immunity, a government official is immune from civil damages unless his conduct violates a clearly established right of which a reasonable

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 .

Porterfield v. Lott

156 F.3d 563 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Sep 22, 1998

not violate clearly established rights of which a reasonable person would have known." … Officials lose the protection of the immunity if they violate a constitutional or statutory right of the plaintiff and the right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation such that an objectively reasonable

Marcus Torry v. City of Chicago

932 F.3d 579 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Aug 2, 2019

In any event, the court said, the officers were entitled to qualified immunity because the stop did not violate clearly established law. … Qualified immunity protects government officials from li- ability for civil damages as long as their actions do not violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known

Jefferson v. Ysleta Independent School District

817 F.2d 303 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · May 20, 1987

Finding that the pleadings allege conduct which “violate[s] clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known,” Harlow v. … Analysis The defense of qualified immunity protects a public official from liability in the performance of his duties unless he violates a clearly established statutory or constitutional right of another known to or knowable

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

Wilson Smith v. Officer Troy Taff

Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Nov 9, 2009

Qualified immunity shields government actors from suit unless their conduct violates clearly established constitutional or statutory rights that a reasonable person would have known. Henderson v. … was clearly established at the time of the deprivation.”

Burton v. Richmond

370 F.3d 723 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Aug 2, 2004

Because we determine that there was no violation of a clearly established constitutional right, defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. … II. 5 Governmental officials are entitled to qualified immunity under § 1983 when performing discretionary functions unless they violate clearly established law in executing their duties. Burton I, 276 F.3d at 976 .

Demaree v. Pederson

887 F.3d 870 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jan 23, 2018

"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 a reasonable person … (ii) Whether the constitutional right was clearly established We move to the second step of the qualified immunity inquiry-whether the relevant judicial precedents at the time of the incident clearly gave notice that what

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

Christopher Covey v. Assessor of Ohio County

777 F.3d 186 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Jan 26, 2015

Thus, they are not entitled to qualified immunity at this stage. The tax assessor’s claim to qualified immunity is a closer call. … On one hand, “an official who performs an act clearly established to be beyond the scope of his discretionary authority is not entitled to claim qualified immunity

Ferris v. Borough of Baldwin

247 F. Supp. 3d 671 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 23, 2017

The Court also concludes that Scott and Lederman are entitled to qualified .immunity under the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis—“whether the right at issue was clearly established at the time of the alleged … Yerke, 604 Fed.Appx. 149, 152 (3d Cir. 2015) (applying Werkheiser to discuss qualified immunity and explaining that “the law [regarding ‘elected officials’ speech’] was not clearly established”).