Case law

Washington v. St. Albans Police Department

30 F. Supp. 2d 455 · District Court, D. Vermont · Oct 27, 1998

Alternatively, Defendants also raise the defense of qualified immunity. … A defense of qualified immunity is established if “(a) the defendants’ action did not violate clearly established law, or (b) it was objectively reasonable for the defendant to believe that his action did not violate such

Linda Mays v. H.G. Rhodes

255 F.3d 644 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jun 29, 2001

Qualified immunity generally shields public officials performing discretionary functions from civil liability if "their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … Second, the right allegedly violated must be clearly established. Id.

Wright v. Montgomery County

215 F.3d 367 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jun 9, 2000

Wright argues that the Appellants’ qualified immunity claims are not reviewable on interlocutory appeal because the District Court’s December 18, 1998, Memorandum and Order “sets forth the clearly established right which … Holding as we do that Wright has alleged the violation of a clearly established right, we must also hold that the Appellants are not entitled to qualified immunity at this stage of the proceedings. IV.

Parsons v. Ann Arbor, City of

District Court, E.D. Michigan · Mar 2, 2021

Qualified immunity "'shield[s]' public officials from money-damages liability if 'their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.'" … "To survive the motion to dismiss on qualified-immunity grounds, [P]laintiff must allege facts that plausibly mak[e] out a claim that the defendant's conduct violated a constitutional right that was clearly established

Darius Gittens v. Superintendent Eugene S. Lefevre, Review Officer Lt. Kavanaugh, Correction Officer J. Gillen, Sergeant Goodrich

891 F.2d 38 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Nov 29, 1989

Qualified Immunity Gittens’ claim was properly dismissed on qualified immunity grounds. … Accordingly, defendants are entitled to qualified immunity as a matter of 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

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.

Tuttle v. Gallegos

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jun 29, 2026

A The qualified-immunity doctrine shields public officials from suit for damages under § 1983 unless their conduct violates a clearly established constitutional right. Mace v. … of clearly established law.”

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.

Gaston v. Coughlin

861 F. Supp. 199 · District Court, W.D. New York · Aug 12, 1994

Therefore, Defendants Le-Baron and Grant, both prison hearing officers, are entitled to qualified immunity from liability for damages if their conduct did not violate a clearly established statutory or constitutional right … Accordingly, the hearing officer was 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.”

Renn Ex Rel. Renn v. Garrison

100 F.3d 344 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Nov 12, 1996

Qualified immunity shields public officials from personal liability for discretionary actions provided their conduct does not violate "clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a rea- sonable person … The question of whether an official is entitled to qualified immunity may be answered as a matter of law by determining "whether the legal norms allegedly violated by the defendant[s] were clearly established at the time

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.

ESTATE OF SCOTT BY SCOTT v. DeLeon

603 F. Supp. 1328 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Mar 13, 1985

I now consider the supervisory defendants' argument that they are protected against this claim by their qualified immunity, see Harlow v. … Accordingly, defendants' motion for summary judgment based on their qualified immunity is DENIED.

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.

Roy v. Inhabitants of the City of Lewiston

42 F.3d 691 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Dec 21, 1994

Creighton addressed to qualified immunity for a Fourth Amendment violation. … On the contrary, this court has held that it would be unsuitable to instruct a jury that excessive force must be "clearly" established to justify liability; we reasoned that the term could confuse the jury

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.

Spencer v. Roche

755 F. Supp. 2d 250 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Nov 8, 2010

Qualified Immunity Defendant VHS contends that its nurse employees are entitled to qualified immunity for their actions, and that it cannot be liable under a theory of vicarious or supervisory liability for actions that are … Defendants Roche and Morris do not assert qualified immunity as a defense on summary judgment. 13 .