Case law

Joseph Carl Brown v. Joseph Ponte

842 F.2d 16 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Mar 14, 1988

As a result, the qualified immunity defense is available to appellants. … If the law at the time of appellants’ actions was not “clearly established,” they could not have “known” that their conduct was forbidden. Id.

Barajas v. Waters

815 F. Supp. 222 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Mar 11, 1993

Qualified Immunity In their motion for dismissal, or alternatively, summary judgment, defendants raised the defense of qualified immunity. … Qualified immunity is not, however, available as a defense if the officer knew or reasonably should have known that the law clearly proscribes the action taken and that the action violated clearly established statutory or

Charles Brumitt v. Sam Smith

Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · May 20, 2024

circumstances was ‘clearly established.’” … denying qualified immunity.

Maxcie Thomas v. Houston Talley

Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · May 25, 2001

Qualified immunity "shield[s] [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 … immunity ... typically, the issue whether the federal right allegedly infringed was 'clearly established' " (emphasis in original).

Jones v. State

170 Wash. 2d 338 · Washington Supreme Court · Nov 4, 2010

Whether Wene and Jeppesen are entitled to qualified immunity from liability under § 1983 for violating Jones’ right to due process ¶17 When the defendant moves for summary judgment in a § 1983 suit and raises a qualified … Qualified immunity ¶27 Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, “[g]overnment officials performing discretionary functions” are immune from § 1983 suits “if their conduct is objectively reasonable when measured against clearly

LeRod Butler v. City of Detroit, Mich.

936 F.3d 410 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 22, 2019

“Qualified immunity attaches when an official’s conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Kisela v. Hughes, 138 S. … was clearly established.”

Ortega v. Moran

District Court, D. Connecticut · Nov 21, 2022

Moran further asserts a defense of qualified immunity. … In order for a plaintiff to overcome a defense of qualified immunity, a plaintiff must show that the defendant violated a right of the plaintiff that was clearly established law at the time of the conduct in question.

Batiste v. City of Beaumont

421 F. Supp. 2d 969 · District Court, E.D. Texas · Nov 10, 2005

As the doctrine exists today, qualified immunity shields state officials from personal suits for acts in their official capacity insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established rights of which a reasonable person … The concept of conduct objectively unreasonable in light of clearly established law is difficult to grasp.

Dennis Wiertella v. Lake Cnty., Ohio

141 F.4th 775 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 24, 2025

Qualified immunity To overcome Snow’s and Watson’s qualified-immunity defense, the Estate must establish (1) that Snow and Watson violated Wiertella’s constitutional rights, and (2) that the governing caselaw “clearly … Sheehan, 575 U.S. 600, 613 (2015) (“Qualified immunity is no immunity at all if ‘clearly established’ law can simply be defined as the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures.”).

Colin A. Edwards v. Bryan C. Shanley

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jan 12, 2012

“Qualified immunity shields government officials from liability for civil damages for torts committed while performing discretionary duties unless their conduct violates a clearly established statutory or constitutional … As a result, Officer Shanley cannot claim qualified immunity on the grounds that he did not know he was violating Edwards’s constitutional rights.5 In sum, we hold that clearly established federal law prohibits

Duke v. Hamil

997 F. Supp. 2d 1291 · District Court, N.D. Georgia · Feb 4, 2014

Did Defendant Hamil Violate a Clearly Established Constitutional Right? … Even if the Court concluded that Hamil did violate Plaintiffs First Amend-, ment rights, Hamil would still be entitled to qualified immunity because that right was not clearly established.

Webb v. Jessamine County Fiscal Court

802 F. Supp. 2d 870 · District Court, E.D. Kentucky · Aug 5, 2011

To avoid summary judgment based on an assertion of qualified immunity, Plaintiff must first show “a violation of a constitutional right” and that the violated right “was ‘clearly established’ at the time of the defendant’ … Summary judgment is, thus, precluded on the basis of qualified immunity for Teaven so long as the violated right “was ‘clearly established’ at the time of the defendant’s alleged misconduct.” Pearson v.

Coones v. Board of County Commissioners

Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jan 21, 2026

Yehia, 38 F.4th 1282, 1294 (10th Cir. 2022) (“[G]eneral statements of the law can clearly establish a right for qualified immunity purposes if they apply with obvious clarity to the specific conduct in question.” … In particular, we focused in Cox on the plaintiff’s failure to adequately brief the question of clearly established law in response to the defendant’s assertion of qualified immunity. See id. at 1245–46.

Armendariz v. Penman

75 F.3d 1311 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Feb 7, 1996

immunity because their actions did not violate any clearly established federal constitutional or statutory rights. … The defendants are entitled to qualified immunity only “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v.

Daniel Houlihan v. City of Chicago

871 F.3d 540 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Sep 8, 2017

To thwart qualified immunity, the plaintiffs had to prove two things: “first, that the facts alleged describe a vi- olation of a protected right; and second, that this right was clearly established at the time of the defendant's … Cook County Sheriff’s Office—decided four years after the police department reassigned them—the Northern Dis- trict of Illinois granted qualified immunity after concluding that the law did not clearly establish that the security-special

Marin v. Gonzales, et al.

2005 DNH 167 · District Court, D. New Hampshire · Dec 19, 2005

Qualified Immunity. … Qualified immunity protects "government officials performing discretionary functions . . . from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional

Parks v. Pomeroy

387 F.3d 949 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Dec 20, 2004

plaintiff can establish a constitutional violation, he is entitled to qualified immunity. … This "clearly established" standard must be met in order to permit the denial of qualified immunity. For these inquiries, we conduct a de novo review. See, e.g., Tuggle v.

Courtney Saunders v. Kyle Thies

38 F.4th 701 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jun 29, 2022

The district court resolved the officers’ entitlement to qualified immunity on the clearly established prong, concluding that it was not clearly established that the -12- failure … The district court thus resolved this claim on the clearly established prong of the qualified immunity analysis rather than the constitutional violation prong.

Limones v. School District of Lee County

111 So. 3d 901 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Feb 6, 2013

“It is clearly established that one who undertakes to act, even when under no obligation to do so, thereby becomes obligated to act with reasonable care.” Union Park Mem’l Chapel v. Hutt, 670 So.2d 64, 66-67 (Fla.1996). … as establishing a civil liability.”

Norfleet v. ARK. DEPT. OF HUMAN SERVICES

796 F. Supp. 1194 · District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Jun 1, 1992

Qualified immunity from liability for civil damages exists where the defendants' actions do not violate "clearly established constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known." … The Court, however, does not need to decide this question because it finds that the law in this area is not clearly established and the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity.