Case law

Boyd v. Knox

47 F.3d 966 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Feb 15, 1995

The defendants then appealed the issue of qualified immunity. II. DISCUSSION An order denying summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity is immediately appealable. Henderson v. … Second, we must determine whether that right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation. Id.

Riley

District Court, N.D. Georgia · Mar 4, 2026

So, to avoid qualified immunity, Plaintiff must present evidence that these Defendants violated his statutory or constitutional rights and that it was “clearly established at the time” that their conduct did … Turning to qualified immunity, the Eleventh Circuit—citing Hale and other cases—determined the sheriff violated clearly established law. Id. at 1034.

Campbell v. Sumner

587 F. Supp. 376 · District Court, D. Nevada · Jun 11, 1984

Prison officials have qualified immunity from monetary liability under *380 § 1983. Procunier v. Navarette, supra, 434 U.S. at 561 , 98 S.Ct. at 859 . … Not only was the law not clearly established in June of 1982, when the envelope from the FBI arrived at the prison, it still isn’t clearly established in the Ninth Circuit.

Lee v. McCue

410 F. Supp. 2d 221 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jan 20, 2006

The Defense of Qualified Immunity: Waiver Defendants argue that the individual officers involved in the arrest are entitled to qualified immunity as to plaintiffs federal claims. … Defendants concede that “freedom from false arrest, false imprisonment, and excessive force are clearly established rights.” Br. at 6.

Anilao v. Spota

27 F.4th 855 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Mar 9, 2022

"Qualified immunity protects a public official from liability for conduct that 'does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.'" … Transit Auth., 124 F.3d 123, 130 (2d Cir. 1997) (denying qualified immunity to police officers where a reasonable jury could find they "violated the plaintiffs' clearly established constitutional rights by conspiring to

Lytes v. Smith

11 F. Supp. 3d 527 · District Court, D. South Carolina · Mar 28, 2014

Qualified Immunity Defendants next assert that they are entitled to qualified immunity 8 because even assuming the court finds a violation of Plaintiffs constitutional rights, their conduct did not violate “clearly established … Furthermore, because Plaintiff has failed to establish a violation of his constitutional rights, the court need not address whether Plaintiffs asserted rights were “clearly established” for purposes of qualified immunity.

Linda Jenkins v. Frederick Tucker

857 F.3d 765 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · May 23, 2017

(2) that right "was clearly established" at the time of the violation. … was clearly established at the time in question."

Kirby v. County of Fresno

242 Cal. App. 4th 940 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 1, 2015

County contends that the CUA and the MMP provide a limited immunity from prosecution under state statutes, but provide no immunity from prosecution pursuant to a local law such as County’s. … The provision clearly states that such possession must be “consistent with this article”—that is, consistent with the MMP.

Kathryn M. Zorzi v. County of Putnam, Philip H. Hansen, Former Sheriff of Putnam County, Donald Maggi, Sheriff of Putnam County

30 F.3d 885 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Aug 26, 1994

“The defense of 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 … Rather, he claims that he is entitled to qualified immunity because count two does not set forth a substantive due process violation, or at least not one that is clearly established.

Charles Kaminski v. Brad Coulter

865 F.3d 339 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 25, 2017

were not “clearly established” at the time that the violation occurred. … With respect to Clinton’s qualified-immunity defense, the district court held that the plaintiffs’ constitutional rights “were clearly established” and that thus qualified immunity was unavailable.

Kerns v. Independent School District No. 31

984 F. Supp. 2d 1144 · District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · Oct 31, 2013

Qualified Immunity Defendants have raised the defense of qualified immunity with respect to claims against Alexander in his individual capacity. … Qualified immunity can shield Alexander from liability for civil damages if his conduct “d[id] not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”

Strope v. Collins

492 F. Supp. 2d 1289 · District Court, D. Kansas · Jun 15, 2007

Qualified Immunity on Individual Capacity Claims Generally, government officials performing discretionary functions are shielded from liability for civil damages unless their conduct violates clearly established statutory … Accordingly, the current summary judgment record does not establish, at least at this procedural juncture, that defendants are entitled to qualified immunity on this claim.

N.E., as Legal Guardian for Infant J v. v. State of

449 N.J. Super. 379 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Apr 4, 2017

Objective reasonableness will be established if the actor's conduct did not violate a clearly established constitutional or statutory right. Gormley v. … A defendant who cannot establish that his or her conduct was objectively reasonable may still invoke qualified immunity if his or her actions were carried out in good faith.

Harvey Pelfrey v. The Estate of Steven Dewey McDowell, by and Through Brenda Roberts, as Administratrix

Court of Appeals of Kentucky · May 29, 2026

Mattingly defended in part based on qualified official immunity. … As such, Mattingly was not entitled to qualified official immunity.

Linda K. Wood v. Steven C. Ostrander Neil Maloney

879 F.2d 583 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jun 27, 1989

Qualified, Immunity State officials cannot be held liable for damages under section 1983 unless their conduct violates a clearly established constitutional right. Davis v. … away clearly established law.

Sims v. Metropolitan Dade County

972 F.2d 1230 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Sep 18, 1992

actions violated clearly established rights. … Assuming the facts as Sims alleged them for the purposes of qualified immunity, the county officials' actions violated clearly established law and they are not entitled to qualified immunity. * Honorable Bailey Brown, Senior

Calloway v. Boro of Glassboro Department of Police

89 F. Supp. 2d 543 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Feb 8, 2000

It is well-established that under the doctrine of qualified immunity: Government officials performing discretionary functions are “shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as then-conduct does not violate clearly … Under the circumstances of this case, I find that the law at the time of the allegedly discriminatory conduct was not clearly established and therefore, Best, Massari, and Powell are entitled to qualified immunity. c. § 1983

Stokes v. City of Chicago

744 F. Supp. 183 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Aug 24, 1990

The standard for granting qualified immunity is well-established. … It is clearly established that the fourth amendment requires truthful factual showing sufficient to constitute probable cause. Franks v.

Pate v. United States

277 F. Supp. 2d 1 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 23, 2003

Second, regarding defendant Quick’s claims of absolute immunity, plaintiff argues that immunity is only warranted where officials “can prove that their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … When determining whether an official is entitled to qualified immunity, courts must ask whether the official engaged in conduct that violated the clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of a person of which

Vincent v. City of Sulphur

28 F. Supp. 3d 626 · District Court, W.D. Louisiana · May 15, 2014

Thus, the second prong of the qualified immunity test, whether the right was clearly established at the time, must be considered. … for the purpose of establishing qualified immunity.