Case law

Sanabria v. Martins

568 F. Supp. 2d 220 · District Court, D. Connecticut · Mar 26, 2008

not violated clearly established law.” … immunity, as a matter of well-established law.

Krug v. Lutz

329 F.3d 692 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · May 14, 2003

Qualified Immunity Krug, for his part, challenges the district court’s conclusion that the ADOC officials are entitled to qualified immunity from his claim for damages. … We therefore move on: [T]he next, sequential step is to ask whether the right was clearly established.

DeJesus v. Delaware

210 F. Supp. 3d 620 · District Court, D. Delaware · Sep 28, 2016

Government officials performing discretionary functions are generally immune from liability for civil damages when their conduct does “not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … To establish a case that overcomes qualified immunity, a plaintiff must plead facts “showing (1) that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was clearly established at the time of

Shevlin v. Cheatham

211 F. Supp. 2d 963 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · May 7, 2002

Qualified immunity extends to individuals performing discretionary functions, unless their actions violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Id. … immunity because he violated clearly established rights.

Butler v. City of Prairie Village

974 F. Supp. 1386 · District Court, D. Kansas · Aug 25, 1997

Qualified Immunity, i. Standard. Qualified immunity provides immunity from suit, not merely from liability. Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 526 , 105 S.Ct. 2806, 2815-16 , 86 L.Ed.2d 411 (1985). … “Ordinarily, in order for the law to be clearly established, there must be a Supreme Court or Tenth Circuit decision on point, or the clearly established weight of authority from other courts must have found the law to be

Cockcroft v. Kirkland

548 F. Supp. 2d 767 · District Court, N.D. California · Mar 10, 2008

Qualified Immunity. … The defense 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

Pruitt v. Pernell

360 F. Supp. 2d 738 · District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Jan 5, 2005

Therefore, immunity can be established by showing the right allegedly violated was (1) not “clearly established” at the time, or (2) that the violation of a “clearly established” right by a police officer was reasonable when … Therefore, to determine whether Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity, the Court must: (1) identify the specific right allegedly violated; (2) determine whether the right was clearly established at the time of the

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.

Weaver v. State of California

63 Cal. App. 4th 188 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 16, 1998

Defendants also asserted immunity under the qualified immunity doctrine, alleging that they are shielded from liability unless their actions violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … was reasonable and that the qualified immunity doctrine applied.”

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.

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

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

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.”

Carmen Leverette v. Margaret Bell, in Her Individual Capacity, and South Carolina Department of Corrections

247 F.3d 160 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Apr 13, 2001

Allen instructs that “an official may claim qualified immunity as long as his actions are not clearly established to be beyond the boundaries of his discretionary authority.” Id. at 593 . … Layne qualified immunity analysis — that is, examining whether the law was “clearly established” at the time of the challenged conduct. See supra note 4.

Meredith v. Federal Mine Safety & Health Review Commission

177 F.3d 1042 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jun 4, 1999

Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (1982) (restricting qualified immunity protection to actions where official conduct did not violate a clearly established legal right), such immunity does not extend to a suit seeking equitable … of a clearly established right, the lexical priority of the inquiries are identical.

Housing Works, Inc. v. Giuliani

56 F. App'x 530 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jan 3, 2003

right to be free from such conduct was not clearly established at the time of the conduct; or (3) if the defendant’s action was objectively reasonable in light of the legal rules clearly established at the time it was taken … established and consequently, a defendant against such a claim is entitled to qualified immunity.

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

Pintar v. Houck

690 Utah Adv. Rep. 45 · Court of Appeals of Utah · Sep 1, 2011

"The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials 'from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established . constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would … was clearly established at the time of ...

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