Case law

Hirpassa v. Albert

648 F. Supp. 2d 148 · District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 31, 2009

. *151 By definition, qualified immunity is not absolute. … However, “[a] plaintiff who seeks damages for violation of constitutional or statutory rights may overcome the defendant official’s qualified immunity only by showing that those rights were clearly established at the time

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.

Rhodes v. Torres

901 S.W.2d 794 · Texas Court of Appeals, 14th District (Houston) · Jun 22, 1995

The test under federal immunity law for such claims is as follows: “[W]e look to whether a reasonable official could have believed his or her conduct to be lawful in light of clearly established law and the information possessed … Rhodes was lawful in light of clearly established law and the information he possessed at the time he filed the motion to revoke her probation.

Avone Kukla v. Andrew D. Hulm Scott Brown

310 F.3d 1046 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Nov 15, 2002

To avoid summary judgment based on qualified immunity, Kukla had to assert a violation of a constitutional right, show the alleged right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation, and raise a genuine issue … In other words, qualified immunity shields Brown and Hulm from this lawsuit if they could *1049 have reasonably believed their conduct was lawful in light of clearly established law and the information they possessed.

Rodgers v. Hawley

14 F. App'x 403 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 22, 2001

Thus, assuming Kedzierzawski and Kirkwood violated Irvin’s right to be free from retaliation for filing grievances, the question for purposes of qualified immunity is whether this violation involved a “clearly established … Because they did not violate constitutional rights that were clearly established at the time of their actions, Kedzierzawski and Kirkwood are entitled to qualified immunity on Irvin’s retaliation claim. 6 IV For the reasons

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

Glover v. Mabrey

384 F. App'x 763 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jun 28, 2010

It determined the ODOT defendants were not entitled to qualified immunity because retaliation for exercising First Amendment rights is a clearly established constitutional violation. … As the cases above indicate, freedom from retaliation for protected activity was clearly established when the defendants acted and they are not entitled to qualified immunity.

Ramirez v. Granado

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Dec 30, 2025

’s allegedly wrongful conduct violated clearly established law.’” … ) “whether that right was clearly established at the time of the violation.”

Carey v. Maloney

480 F. Supp. 2d 548 · District Court, D. Connecticut · Mar 30, 2007

Qualified immunity is warranted if either (1) the official’s actions did not violate clearly established law, or (2) even if the actions violated a clearly established law, the official was objectively reasonable in believing … Qualified Immunity as to Fox and Maloney As described above, “[t]he right of an individual not to be subjected to excessive force has long been clearly established.” Calamia v.

Merrill v. West Virginia Department of Health & Human Resources

219 W. Va. 151 · West Virginia Supreme Court · May 12, 2006

Va.Code, 29-12A-1, et seq., is entitled to qualified immunity from personal liability for official acts if the involved conduct did not violate clearly established laws of which a reasonable official would have known. … DHHR was entitled to qualified immunity because Appellants had failed to adduce even a scintilla of evidence that DHHR had violated any clearly established law.

Betty Grooms v. Judge Steven Privette

127 F.4th 730 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Feb 4, 2025

Qualified immunity attaches if the defendants’ conduct did not “violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Billingsley v. St. … We start our consideration of the case with Grooms’s First Amendment claim, and, because we are satisfied that any law Bell or Privette violated was not clearly established, we hold that they enjoy qualified immunity with

Howell v. Smith

853 F.3d 892 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Apr 10, 2017

Qualified immunity shields federal and state officials from money damages unless a plaintiff demonstrates that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right and that the right was “clearly established” at the … established law.”

Violano v. Fernandez

88 Conn. App. 1 · Connecticut Appellate Court · Mar 15, 2005

any of the exceptions applicable to qualified governmental immunity for discretionary acts. … None of the exceptions to qualified governmental immunity apply to the facts alleged.

Wilber v. Curtis

872 F.3d 15 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Sep 20, 2017

Gikas, 861 F.3d 296, 302 (1st Cir. 2017), but also "whether the right was 'clearly established' at the time of" the challenged governmental conduct, id. at 303. … And, a government official, in consequence of qualified immunity, may not be held liable under § 1983 unless the official is found to have violated a federal law right that is clearly established. Id.

Pine v. Synkonis

79 Pa. Commw. 479 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 11, 1984

There was also evidence that damaged or missing guardrail had been left unrepaired for an extended period of time. 3 Qualified immunity Initially we must determine whether the Appellants are protected by the qualified immunity … In DuBree , the Court 4 analyzed prior law governing official immunity and established considerations for determining whether an official should be immune. These can be summarized as follows: 1.

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.

Billado v. Parry

937 F. Supp. 337 · District Court, D. Vermont · Jul 18, 1996

The deputies do not dispute that the law governing their § 1983 duties was clearly established on March 21, 1992. … Sheriff Manosh claims that he cannot be held liable for the negligent actions of his deputies because they are protected by qualified immunity, and he is protected by official immunity.

Cromartie v. Billings

Supreme Court of Virginia · Jan 16, 2020

The court in Smith held that the officer was not entitled to qualified immunity. These cases are sufficiently similar to Cromartie’s to constitute clearly established law. … and qualified immunity.

United Artists Theatre Circuit, Inc. v. Township of Warrington

316 F.3d 392 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jan 14, 2003

Qualified immunity applies so long as the officials’ “conduct [did] not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Id. … clearly established at the time of the violation.

Kirkland Ex Rel. Jones v. Greene County Board of Education

347 F.3d 903 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Oct 7, 2003

Notwithstanding that his actual conduct may have violated the Constitution, Morrow agues that at the time of the incident the right to be free from corporal punishment was not clearly established. … Thus, the qualified immunity question turns on whether Morrow’s actions as described by Kirkland violated these principles.