Case law

Carvajal v. Dominguez

542 F.3d 561 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Sep 5, 2008

An appeal of an order denying qualified immunity is a well-established application of this doctrine: “A district court’s denial of a claim of qualified immunity, to- the extent that it turns on an issue of law is an appealable … If not, the inquiry ends, and the officer has qualified immunity. If yes, then the second step is whether the violated right was clearly established.

Drakeford v. County of Orange

213 F. App'x 542 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Dec 14, 2006

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity analysis consists of two questions. … Thus an officer whose actions in fact violate clearly established law may nonetheless be entitled to qualified immunity if those actions are reasonable in light of the information the officer had at the time of the arrest

Collier v. Montgomery

569 F.3d 214 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · May 20, 2009

The remaining defendants moved for summary judgment based on qualified immunity. … on the basis of qualified immunity in a § 1983 suit de novo.2 In Saucier v.

Harris v. Roderick

933 F. Supp. 977 · District Court, D. Idaho · May 28, 1996

Qualified immunity protects law enforcement officials from liability for civil damages unless their conduct violates “clearly established rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. … Even if the Court cannot find as a matter of law that the shot was reasonable, Defendants assert, the Court can find that the law on excessive force was not clearly established and that Horiuchi has qualified immunity.

Little v. Smith

114 F. Supp. 2d 437 · District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Aug 17, 2000

Government officials performing discretionary functions are entitled to qualified immunity from liability for civil damages to the extent that “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … [Qualified immunity is an immunity from suit, and not merely a defense to liability....

Babb v. Lake City Community College

66 F.3d 270 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Oct 5, 1995

is whether the facts show a violation of "clearly established" law. … "clearly established" law.

Guerra v. Sutton

783 F.2d 1371 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Feb 28, 1986

IMMUNITY OF THE FEDERAL DEFENDANTS A federal officer is entitled to qualified immunity for actions taken in the course of duty unless the officer’s conduct violated “clearly established” law. Harlow v. … We construe the district court’s dismissal of the FTCA claim as based on the same qualified immunity grounds.

Morin v. Caire

77 F.3d 116 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Mar 7, 1996

The Plaintiffs' Constitutional Claims: Public officials are entitled to qualified immunity from suit under § 1983 unless it is shown by specific allegations that the officials violated clearly established law.10 … To determine if qualified immunity applies, this court follows a two-step process.

Ralph Rogers v. Michael Fair

902 F.2d 140 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Apr 30, 1990

We have jurisdiction to review a district court’s denial of qualified immunity on grounds that a genuine issue of material fact exists as to the factual predicate of a qualified immunity claim. … concerning qualified immunity.

Hegwood v. City of Eau Claire

668 F. Supp. 2d 1156 · District Court, W.D. Wisconsin · Nov 10, 2009

“cannot clearly establish a constitutional violation.”). … Because plaintiffs have failed to show that it was “clearly established” that applying Wisconsin’s disorderly house statute would *1168 be unconstitutional, I conclude that the individual defendants have qualified immunity

Hubbard v. Taylor

452 F. Supp. 2d 533 · District Court, D. Delaware · Sep 20, 2006

“Qualified immunity shields state officials from suit where their conduct ‘does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’ ” Id. (quoting Harlow v. … If the court concludes that the defendant’s conduct violated a clearly established constitutional or statutory right, then it must deny the defendant the protection afforded by qualified immunity. Id.

Clue v. Johnson

179 F.3d 57 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jun 10, 1999

"The defense of qualified immunity shields government officials from civil liability if the official's conduct did not violate constitutional rights that were clearly established at the pertinent time or if it was objectively … Instead, they contend that their activities raise a public concern under clearly established law and that Johnson is therefore not entitled to qualified immunity. See infra.

DEFOE EX REL. DEFOE v. Spiva

566 F. Supp. 2d 748 · District Court, E.D. Tennessee · Jul 10, 2008

Qualified immunity does not shield public officials from liability for violating constitutional rights which are clearly established. Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 , 201, 121 S.Ct. 2151 , 150 L.Ed.2d 272 (2001). … If the court determines that the right is clearly established, qualified immunity does not shield the public officials from liability. Saucier, 533 U.S. at 202, 121 S.Ct. 2151 .

Charles Bella v. Lee Chamberlain and Curtis Meyers

24 F.3d 1251 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · May 20, 1994

Qualified immunity shields “government officials performing discretionary functions ... from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of … The very purpose of qualified immunity is to "weed out” suits that fail to assert the violation of a clearly established constitutional right "without requiring a defendant ... to engage in expensive and time consuming preparation

Williams ex rel. Williams v. Papi

30 F. Supp. 3d 306 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 3, 2014

Qualified Immunity Defendant next argues that “an additional and fully sufficient basis exists to dismiss Plaintiffs Fourth Amendment claim, namely qualified immunity.” (Doc. 10 at 12.) … It has likewise held that when a “complaint failed to disclose whether the defendants’ actions did not violate a clearly established constitutional right, dismissal on qualified immunity grounds was premature.”

Carter v. Rhode Island

68 F.3d 9 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Oct 18, 1995

had been "clearly established" long before 1990. … immunity from suit "if the right asserted by the plaintiff was `clearly established' at the time of its alleged violation . . .

Ortiz v. Alvarez

341 F. Supp. 3d 1087 · District Court, E.D. California · Sep 21, 2018

Government officials enjoy qualified immunity from civil damages unless their conduct violates clearly established statutory or constitutional rights. Jeffers v. … In evaluating a qualified immunity defense, the court first considers: (1) whether the defendant's conduct violated a statutory or constitutional right; and (2) whether the right at issue was "clearly established."

State Board of Chiropractic Examiners v. Stjernholm

935 P.2d 959 · Supreme Court of Colorado · Apr 7, 1997

When only qualified immunity applies and the suit is for damages, a section 1983 claim must allege violation of a clearly established constitutional right and material facts of misconduct, under circumstances which reveal … To withstand a motion for summary judgment in the qualified immunity context, violation of a clearly established constitutional right 15 and material facts of misconduct must be pleaded.

McKinney v. Lexington-Fayette Urban County Government

651 F. App'x 449 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 9, 2016

The resolution of the officers’ state-law qualified-official-immunity claims depends on the same issues of fact as their federal qualified-immunity claims. … The district court also held that since the officers may have violated McKinney’s clearly established constitutional rights, the doctrine of qualified official immunity did not shield the officers from liability against the

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.”).