Case law

Viilo v. Eyre

547 F.3d 707 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Oct 27, 2008

Qualified immunity protects government officials from liability for civil damages if their actions did not violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … immunity, and (2) the issue appealed concerned not which facts the parties might be able to prove, but rather whether or not those facts showed a violation of clearly established law.

Walters v. Grossheim

990 F.2d 381 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Apr 1, 1993

they violated a clearly established constitutional right. … That finding is not clearly erroneous.

Warren Bass v. Thomas A. Coughlin, Iii, Raymond Broaddus, Earl D. Moore, James J. Plescia, Gloria Butler-Conrad, and John Glasheen

976 F.2d 98 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Sep 24, 1992

McAvoy, Judge, denying their motion for summary judgment on the ground of qualified immunity in connection with their rejection of requests in 1989 and 1990 by plaintiff Warren Bass, a prisoner, for meals prepared in accordance … At least as early as 1975, it was established that prison officials must provide a prisoner a diet that is consistent with his religious scruples. See Kahane v. Carlson, 527 F.2d 492 (2d Cir.1975).

Ready v. Heckart

District Court, N.D. Mississippi · Jan 11, 2022

Thomas, 843 F.3d 172, 177 (5th Cir. 2016) (“Qualified immunity protects officers from suit unless their conduct violates a clearly established constitutional right.”) (quoting Mace v. … Qualified immunity calls for a bifurcated test in which the court must first determine (1) “whether the plaintiff has alleged a violation of a clearly established statutory or constitutional right that was clearly established

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.”

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

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.

Shinault v. Hawks

782 F.3d 1053 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jan 22, 2015

Yet, we ultimately affirm on the basis of qualified immunity because the constitutional obligation was not clearly established at the time of the conduct. 1 FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY Lester Shinault was incarcerated … the right was not clearly established at the time of conduct.

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

Rasul v. Myers

563 F.3d 527 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Apr 24, 2009

immunity shields the defendants because the asserted rights were not clearly established at the time of plaintiffs’ detention. … The doctrine of qualified immunity shields government officials from civil liability to the extent their alleged misconduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person

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.