Case law

Laguerre v. Nevada System of Higher Education

837 F. Supp. 2d 1176 · District Court, D. Nevada · Aug 5, 2011

This grant of immunity is available to state or federal employees performing discretionary functions where their actions, even if later found to be unlawful, did not violate clearly established law. Harlow v. … With respect to a qualified immunity claim, the plaintiff has the burden of establishing that the right claimed was clearly established. Baker v. Racansky, 887 F.2d 183, 186 (9th Cir.1989).

Saint-Vil v. Alves

District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jun 7, 2023

Strickland is the clearly established federal law governing an ineffective assistance of counsel claim. See Williams v. … Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 391 (2000) (“It is past question that the rule set forth in Strickland qualifies as ‘clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United

Bettio v. Village of Northfield

775 F. Supp. 1545 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Oct 18, 1991

asserted is clearly established. … As such, there being no clearly established right in existence as to this portion of the claim, Satola and Varga do not lose the protection of qualified immunity here.

Spinelli v. Byars

District Court, D. Colorado · Oct 7, 2025

As Imbler and its progeny establish, absolute prosecutorial immunity is intended to protect the judicial process, not the prosecutor. See Briscoe v. … App'x at 705 (discerning no absolute immunity where prosecutors allegedly fabricated evidence “for the purpose of establishing probable cause”).

Eilenfeldt ex rel. J.M. v. United C.U.S.D. 304 Board of Education

169 F. Supp. 3d 867 · District Court, C.D. Illinois · Mar 14, 2016

Qualified Immunity The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials from civil liability for their actions in the course of their duties “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … However, once a claim of qualified immunity has been raised, a plaintiff also bears the burden of demonstrating the violation of a clearly established constitutional right of which a reasonable person would have known.

Aluizio v. Van Kanegan

District Court, N.D. Ohio · Aug 8, 2025

Qualified Immunity Van Kanegan argues he is entitled to qualified immunity because Aulizio cannot establish a violation of any clearly established constitutional right. … “The doctrine of qualified immunity provides that ‘government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established

Keenan v. Ahern

District Court, E.D. Virginia · Mar 8, 2021

The doctrine of qualified immunity “shields government officials from liability for civil damages, provided that their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or … purposes of qualified immunity.”

Shah v. University of Texas Southwestern Medical School

54 F. Supp. 3d 681 · District Court, N.D. Texas · Oct 20, 2014

Shah violated a clearly established right. … Shah violated one or more of Shah’s clearly established constitutional rights when he wrote to the SPC, Dr. Shah is entitled to qualified immunity. E The court now considers whether Dr.

Hernandez v. Wells

District Court, M.D. Florida · May 20, 2022

immunity on summary judgment because his qualified immunity turned on a dispute of fact). … “Falsifying facts to establish probable cause is clearly unconstitutional and has been ‘clearly established’ long before [Hernandez’s] arrest.” Mead v. McKeithen, 571 F. App’x 788, 792 (11th Cir. 2014) (per curiam).

Blair Hays v. J. Gastelo

District Court, C.D. California · May 4, 2021

Qualified Immunity 20 Courts recognize qualified immunity “to balance competing values: not only the 21] importance of a damages remedy to protect the rights of citizens . . . but also ‘the need to protect … As 28 such, “[o]nce the official pleads qualified immunity, the burden is on the plaintiff to prove two elements: (1) that the right was violated; and (2) that the right was clearly established at the 2| time

Anderson v. Furst

District Court, E.D. Michigan · Mar 20, 2020

further inquiries concerning qualified immunity. … Thereafter, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to establish that the defendant's conduct violated a right so clearly established that any official in his position would have clearly understood he was under an

Bell v. Fort Wayne Police Department

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Jul 31, 2019

“The doctrine of 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 … The United States Supreme Court recently reiterated the standard in qualified immunity cases: Under our cases, the clearly established right must be defined with specificity.

Rouse v. Plantier

987 F. Supp. 302 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Dec 5, 1997

Although most defenses of qualified immunity stand or fall on whether the right allegedly violated was “clearly established,” it is quite clear that even where the right is clearly established, the defense is still available … been clearly established.

Hicks Hagan v. Funk

District Court, M.D. Tennessee · Sep 29, 2025

statutory or constitutional right, and (2) the unlawfulness of their conduct was clearly established at the time.” … For purposes of qualified immunity, Defendant challenges only the clearly established prong.4 Defendant argues that it was not clearly established that changing Plaintiff’s job responsibilities because of

Parker v. Armstrong

District Court, W.D. Texas · Aug 7, 2024

Qualified immunity bars suit against officers in their official capacity from liability for civil damages so long as their conduct does not violate a clearly established statutory constitutional right. … Jones, 922 F.3d 309, 318 (5th Cir. 2019) (holding that before the qualified immunity inquiry discretionary authority must be established)).

Hooks v. Warren, City of

District Court, E.D. Michigan · Mar 30, 2024

Of course, qualified immunity would protect officers if their conduct did not violate clearly established rights. Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 231 (2009). … Though there are some differences between qualified immunity and Michigan statutory governmental immunity—qualified immunity uses an objective standard to evaluate reasonableness, for instance, while Michigan

Osborne v. Vincent

District Court, D. Oregon · Aug 7, 2025

violated a clearly established constitutional right. … Pauly, 580 U.S. 73, 78-79 (2017) (“Qualified immunity attaches when an official’s conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”)

Greiner v. City of Champlin

816 F. Supp. 528 · District Court, D. Minnesota · Mar 9, 1993

Moreover, plaintiffs argue that because a reasonable officer would have known that the orders to leave the party violated clearly established constitutional rights, qualified immunity is not available. … Defendants argue that none of the arrests violated plaintiffs’ clearly established constitutional rights and therefore qualified immunity applies.

Edmiston v. City Of Port Angeles

360 F. Supp. 3d 1147 · District Court, W.D. Washington · Dec 21, 2018

Therefore, in the absence of authority demonstrating that the right was clearly established, Officer Brusseau is entitled to qualified immunity. … Nor can Edmiston negate that Officer Brusseau is entitled to qualified immunity on the search issue, if a search indeed occurred, in the absence of clearly established law.

Osborne v. Vincent

District Court, D. Oregon · Aug 11, 2025

violated a clearly established constitutional right. … Pauly, 580 U.S. 73, 78-79 (2017) (“Qualified immunity attaches when an official’s conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”)