Case law

McEvoy v. Spencer

124 F.3d 92 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Aug 11, 1997

Qualified Immunity The defense of qualified immunity shields government agents “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a … A defendant pleading qualified immunity on a motion to dismiss is entitled to prevail if the allegations in the complaint fail to “state a claim of violation of clearly established law.” Behrens v.

Thomas v. Roberts

323 F.3d 950 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Mar 10, 2003

The "clear" requirement stems from the fact that the purpose of qualified immunity is to protect government officials performing discretionary functions from civil liability when their actions violate no "clearly established … Plaintiffs insist that "consensus or persuasive authority" from other circuits may create clearly established law.

John Witherow v. Lea Baker

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · May 18, 2021

not clearly established. … B In considering what constitutes “clearly established” law for purposes of qualified immunity, the Supreme Court has taken a narrow approach.

Kimberly Bennett v. Kentucky Community & Technical College System

Kentucky Supreme Court · Aug 14, 2025

It is well established that “an immunity defense is an appealable issue by interlocutory appeal.” Baker v. Fields, 543 S.W.3d 575, 577 (Ky. 2018). … Our Court subsequently concluded that orders denying qualified official immunity and legislative immunity are also immediately appealable. Meinhart v. Louisville Metro Gov’t, 627 S.W.3d 824, 830 (Ky. 2021); Stivers v.

Stanley v. Gallegos

852 F.3d 1210 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Mar 17, 2017

. § 1291 , the panel reverses and remands to the district court for farther consideration of whether Defendant violated clearly established federal law or is instead entitled to qualified immunity. I. … The Court reiterated that qualified immunity may be overcome “only by showing that [the federal rights in question] were clearly established at the time of the conduct at issue.” Id. at 197, 104 S.Ct. 3012 .

Chism v. Washington State

661 F.3d 380 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Aug 25, 2011

We also conclude that the officers are not entitled to qualified immunity because the Chisms’ right to not be searched and arrested as a result of judicial deception was clearly established at the time Gardner prepared and … Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity shields the officers from liability “insofar as their conduct d[id] not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”

Simon v. City of New York

247 F. Supp. 3d 285 · District Court, E.D. New York · Mar 30, 2017

Instead, “[e]ven if the right at issue was clearly established in certain respects, . ’.. an- officer is still entitled to qualified immunity if officers of reasonable competence could disagree on the legality of the action … An officer may also establish qualified immunity by showing that, “notwithstanding a violation of a clearly established constitutional right, it was objectively reasonable for him to believe his actions did not violate this

Lana Canen v. Dennis Chapman

847 F.3d 407 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jan 27, 2017

Detective Chapman’s failure to disclose that he was not trained as a latent print examiner cannot be characterized as a violation of any clearly established right, and, accordingly, the doctrine of qualified immunity protects … provide the defense with clearly exculpatory information, the officer could not claim qualified immunity.

Matthews v. Bergdorf

889 F.3d 1136 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · May 8, 2018

“In conducting [a] qualified immunity analysis, . . . courts must consider . . . whether each defendant’s alleged conduct violated the plaintiff’s clearly established rights.” … [violated] plaintiffs’ clearly established constitutional rights . . . .

Conforti v. City of Franklin

District Court, E.D. Wisconsin · Sep 13, 2021

In evaluating a law enforcement officer's entitlement to qualified immunity, a court asks whether the officer’s conduct violated a constitutional right and, if so, whether that right was clearly established at the time … The defendants contend that they are entitled to qualified immunity “because there is no clearly established law indicating that officers may be held liable for failing to intervene in the alleged conduct when they directly

DeBoer v. Pennington

206 F.3d 857 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Mar 17, 2000

If the right is not clearly established, the individual defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. See Thompson v. Souza, 111 F.3d 694, 698 (9th Cir.1997). … Clearly Established Law Having identified the right at issue, we must determine whether it was clearly established before January 31, 1995.

Edward Chevallier v. Deputy Sheriff Joel Hand

722 F.3d 1101 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jul 18, 2013

In response, Deputies Hand and Floyd asserted qualified immunity. … Deputy Hand argues that such a requirement was not clearly established at the time of Chevallier's arrest.

Tomberlin v. Clark

1 F. Supp. 3d 1213 · District Court, N.D. Alabama · Feb 19, 2014

Qualified Immunity The affirmative defense of qualified immunity has also been raised. … State and local officials are entitled to qualified immunity if they act within the discretion of their office and their conduct does not violate clearly established constitutional law. Harlow v.

McFarland v. Childers

212 F.3d 1178 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · May 10, 2000

“Under the doctrine of 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 … The question of whether a rule of law is clearly established for qualified immunity purposes is a legal one for this court to determine by examining applicable precedent rather than the experience of individual officers.

Mediavilla v. City of New York

259 F. Supp. 3d 82 · District Court, S.D. New York · Sep 29, 2016

Qualified Immunity The. doctrine of qualified immunity “gives government officials breathing room to make reasonable but mistaken judgments” by immunizing them from suit for damages unless their conduct violated clearly established … Even if the right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation, however, a defendant will still be entitled to qualified immunity if the defendant’s conduct was objectively reasonable in light of clearly established

Helen J. Guercio v. George Brody (88-2013) and John Feikens (89-1137)

911 F.2d 1179 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 13, 1990

[was] clearly established law at the time of Ms. Guercio’s firing.” … “[Defendants] have qualified immunity unless plaintiffs’ ‘rights were so clearly established when the acts were committed that any officer in the defendant’s position, measured objectively, would have clearly understood that

Roric Gibbs v. Brooke Lomas

755 F.3d 529 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jun 17, 2014

Gibbs’s constitutional rights and, even if she did, those rights were not clearly established when she acted. Accordingly, she urges, she is entitled to qualified immunity. … 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 would have known

Martha Stringer v. County of Bucks

141 F.4th 76 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jun 18, 2025

established, as required for qualified immunity. … Stringer’s clearly established constitutional rights.” Opening Br. 25, 28 (emphasis added). But that conflates the two prongs of qualified immunity.

Swanson v. Powers

937 F.2d 965 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Jun 25, 1991

The requirement, after all, is that the law be clearly established, not simply possibly established or even probably established. … The right to due process, for example, might be considered clearly established because of the Constitution's Due Process Clause; however, "if the test of 'clearly established law' were to be applied at this level of generality

Smith v. Reddy

101 F.3d 351 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Nov 27, 1996

Law enforcement officers are entitled to qualified immunity from § 1983 liability arising from their official discretionary acts that do not "violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of … If the right was not clearly established at the relevant time or if a reasonable officer might not have known his or her conduct violated that right, the officer is entitled to immunity.