Case law

Greenaway v. County of Nassau

97 F. Supp. 3d 225 · District Court, E.D. New York · Mar 31, 2015

The second prong of the qualified-immunity analysis asks whether the right in question was clearly established at the time of the violation.” Garcia, 43 F.Supp.3d at 289 . … .-, 134 S.Ct. 1861, 1866 , 188 L.Ed.2d 895 (2014) (noting that courts evaluating qualified immunity must “draw[] inferences in favor of the nonmovant, even when ... a court decides only the clearly-established prong of the

El-Amin v. Tirey

817 F. Supp. 694 · District Court, W.D. Tennessee · Mar 8, 1993

The question of whether an official is protected by qualified immunity turns on “the objective legal reasonableness” of the action, assessed in light of the legal rules that were “clearly established” at the time the action … Consequently, defendants Ring and Hemby are protected by qualified immunity.

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.

David v. District of Columbia

436 F. Supp. 2d 83 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 30, 2006

However, “[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 … her clearly established Fourth Amendment rights under color of state law.

Bosteder v. City of Renton

117 P.3d 316 · Washington Supreme Court · Jul 28, 2005

This suggests the law was clearly established at the time the current warrant was sought and the defendants would not have been entitled to qualified immunity. … However, I disagree the individual defendants are entitled to qualified immunity from liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 because they did not violate a "clearly established" right.

McSean

District Court, E.D. Missouri · Jan 23, 2026

A two-step inquiry applies to a qualified-immunity defense: 1) whether the plaintiff has alleged facts to show a violation of a constitutional right, and 2) whether that right was clearly established at the time of the … Hall, 828 F.3d 298, 305 (4th Cir. 2016) (officer entitled to qualified immunity where plaintiff had not directed court to any case that would have clearly warmed officer that conduct violated First Amendment rights)).

Dehne v. City of Reno

222 F. App'x 560 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Feb 20, 2007

In this appeal, Dehne objects to the district court’s grant of qualified immunity to Griffin. 1 Public officials are entitled to qualified immunity for acts that do not violate clearly established constitutional rights of … If an official “could have believed, ‘reasonably but mistakenly ... that his or her conduct did not violate a clearly established constitutional right,’ ” then qualified immunity applies. Skoog v.

Hernandez v. Selsky

572 F. Supp. 2d 446 · District Court, S.D. New York · Aug 27, 2008

“[Pjublic officials ... are protected by qualified immunity from civil liability for actions taken in their official capacity, if those actions were objectively reasonable in light of clearly established rules then extant … “Hence, a defendant is not liable if he did not violate clearly established law or it was objectively reasonable for him to believe that he was not violating clearly established law.”

Mucker v. Brown

462 S.W.3d 719 · Court of Appeals of Kentucky · May 15, 2015

The teacher was not entitled to qualified official immunity. Id. … Mucker is not entitled to qualified official immunity.

Brigitte Wright v. Tony E. Sims

417 F.3d 879 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Aug 8, 2005

Qualified Immunity “Government officials who perform discretionary functions are entitled to qualified immunity unless their alleged conduct violated clearly established federal constitutional or statutory rights of which … If the answer is no, we grant qualified immunity. If the answer is yes, we go on to determine “whether the right was clearly established.” Id.

Hilliard v. City & County of Denver

930 F.2d 1516 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Apr 24, 1991

This case is an appeal by defendant police officers from the denial of their motion for summary judgment based on qualified immunity. … The defendants moved to dismiss, arguing that the law controlling their actions was not clearly established, and that they therefore had qualified immunity from suit. 1 The district court dismissed all of the plaintiff’s

Gratsch v. Hamilton County

12 F. App'x 193 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 3, 2001

a given set of facts violates clearly established law.” ’ Id. … As discussed above, evaluation of a qualified immunity claim involves answering two questions: 1) did the plaintiff suffer a deprivation of his clearly established constitutional rights; and 2) did the defendant act in an

Brown v. Pepe

42 F. Supp. 3d 310 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Sep 8, 2014

any of Brown’s “clearly established” constitutional rights. … Qualified immunity attaches to discretionary conduct of government officials that “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v.

Cygnar v. City of Chicago

865 F.2d 827 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jan 4, 1989

MATHIS’S QUALIFIED IMMUNITY (RACE DISCRIMINATION) Mathis finally contends that he is immune from damages under the doctrine of qualified “good faith” immunity set forth in Harlow v. … Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, government officials performing discretionary functions are shielded from liability for civil damages in an action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 unless their conduct violated “clearly

Darrell Siggers-El v. David Barlow

412 F.3d 693 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 24, 2005

The Defendant moved for summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity, arguing that it was not clearly established that 1) a prisoner engages in protected conduct when he complains about a prison officer’s failure to … The only issue presented in this appeal is whether the district court erred in denying Defendant Barlow qualified immunity.

Bailey v. Indep. Sch. Dist. No. 69 of Canadian Cnty. Okla.

896 F.3d 1176 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jul 24, 2018

Nonetheless, we affirm the district court's grant of qualified immunity to school superintendent Sean McDaniel because the law was not previously clearly established on this issue. … We AFFIRM the district court's conclusion that McDaniel is entitled to qualified immunity, on the alternative ground that the law at issue was not clearly established at the time he violated it.

Burgess v. West

817 F. Supp. 1520 · District Court, D. Kansas · Mar 25, 1993

To summarize, public officials enjoy qualified immunity from civil damages liability “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have … -Once the defendant has successfully raised the qualified immunity defense, plaintiff must come “forward with facts or allegations to show both that the defendants’ alleged conduct violated the law and that the law was clearly

Bryson v. Gonzales

534 F.3d 1282 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jul 28, 2008

defendants were entitled to qualified immunity. … The only issues that properly belong in an interlocutory appeal for qualified immunity are the existence of a constitutional violation and whether it was clearly established at the time of the defendant’s conduct.

Parks v. City of Brewer

56 F. Supp. 2d 89 · District Court, D. Maine · Jul 16, 1999

Qualified Immunity To assess a claim of qualified immunity, a court must determine (i) whether the plaintiff has alleged the violation of a clearly established right, and (ii) whether a reasonable, similarly situated defendant … When the existence of a constitutional right rests solely on the outcome of a balancing test, many courts have determined that the right generally is not clearly established for purposes of qualified immunity.

Habiger v. City of Fargo

905 F. Supp. 709 · District Court, D. North Dakota · Jan 23, 1995

“Qualified immunity protects a government official *717 from suit if, at the time of the challenged acts, it was not clearly established that those actions would violate clearly established law of which a reasonable person … For purposes of qualified immunity, a right is clearly established if a reasonable official would understand that his or her conduct violates that particular right because the contours of the right are sufficiently clear.