Case law

Banks v. Jones

575 S.W.3d 111 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jun 6, 2019

Public officials are entitled to qualified immunity from damages under Section 1983 unless they transgress "clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known." … Banks is entitled to qualified immunity unless (1) the facts alleged, construed in a light most favorable to Jones, establish a violation of a constitutional or statutory right, and (2) the right was clearly established at

Kennedy v. Dexter Consolidated Schools

129 N.M. 436 · New Mexico Supreme Court · Aug 14, 2000

immunity for the strip-to-undergarments search of Randy Ford because while that search violated his rights, those rights were not “clearly established” in 1992; (2) two Defendants deserved qualified immunity because their … QUALIFIED IMMUNITY {10} All Defendants assert that qualified immunity insulates them from liability.

Boreen v. Christensen

280 Mont. 378 · Montana Supreme Court · Dec 30, 1996

s qualified immunity claim. … Because we hold that Boreen’s property interest in her employment was not clearly established in April of 1990, we need not reach the second prong of the Harlow test for granting qualified immunity.

Baker v. Chaplin

517 N.W.2d 911 · Supreme Court of Minnesota · Jun 30, 1994

Id. at 396 , 109 S.Ct. at 1872 . 5 Many courts have found the law prohibiting excessive force to be clearly established *915 for qualified immunity purposes. See, e.g., Street v. … as asserted by the defendant, the defendant's actions violated clearly established law and are therefore not within the scope of the qualified immunity.

Park County v. Cooney

845 P.2d 346 · Wyoming Supreme Court · Dec 2, 1992

Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 639-40 , 107 S.Ct. 3034, 3038-39 , 97 L.Ed.2d 523 (1987), the Court took up the question of what constitutes a “clearly established legal rule” for purposes of qualified immunity: The operation of … action is a violation) violates a clearly established right.

Clark v. Dunn

195 W. Va. 272 · West Virginia Supreme Court · Oct 30, 1995

The one difference in immunity cases is that the official’s act must be shown to have violated clearly established law of which a reasonable person would have known. … [the West Virginia Governmental Tort Claims and Insurance Refoim Act], is entitled to qualified immunity from personal liability for official acts if the involved conduct did not violate clearly established laws of which

Hamen v. Hamlin Cnty.

2021 S.D. 7 · South Dakota Supreme Court · Feb 10, 2021

the constitutional right was clearly established. … was clearly established at the time.

Cunningham ex rel Gaines v. Baltimore Cnty.

487 Md. 282 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jun 25, 2024

Because the law was not clearly established at the time, qualified immunity is proper. … Alternatively, the Defendants argued that Corporal Ruby was entitled to qualified immunity because he did not violate clearly established law.

Williams v. Baird

273 Neb. 977 · Nebraska Supreme Court · Jul 13, 2007

Qualified immunity provides a shield from liability for public officials sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in their individual capacity, so long as an official’s conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … workers. 32 Whether an official may prevail in his or her qualified immunity defense depends upon the objective reasonableness of his or her conduct as measured by reference to clearly established law. 33 An official sued

Schnabel v. Tyler

230 Conn. 735 · Supreme Court of Connecticut · Aug 9, 1994

Furthermore, “[e]ven where the law is clearly established and the scope of an official’s permissible conduct is clearly defined, the qualified immunity defense also protects an official if it was objectively reasonable for … view that the clearly established law prong was dispositive of the qualified immunity defense.

McLin v. Trimble

61 O.B.A.J. 1633 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Jun 19, 1990

The qualified immunity doctrine may be stated thus: “government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established … The petitioners are immune from suit unless their actions violated clearly established constitutional law. Mitchell v. Forsyth, supra.

City of Fayetteville v. Romine

373 Ark. 318 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · May 1, 2008

violation, demonstrated the constitutional right is clearly established, and raised a genuine issue of fact as to whether the official would have known that the conduct violated that clearly established right. … his conduct violated that clearly established right.

Sullivan v. Coney

427 S.W.3d 682 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · May 23, 2013

right is clearly established, and (3) raised a genuine issue of fact as to whether the official would have known that the conduct violated that clearly established right. … that his conduct violated that clearly established right.

Smith v. BRT

363 Ark. 126 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jun 30, 2005

Under that analysis, a motion for summary judgment based upon qualified immunity is precluded only when the plaintiff has asserted a constitutional violation, demonstrated the constitutional right is clearly established, … qualified immunity under Ark.

Boyle Ventures, LLC v. City of Fayetteville

711 S.W.3d 280 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · May 15, 2025

“A motion for summary judgment based on qualified immunity is precluded only when the plaintiff has asserted a constitutional violation, demonstrated the constitutional right is clearly established and raised a genuine … 21  would have known that the conduct violated that clearly established right.

KARA B. v. Dane County

205 Wis. 2d 140 · Wisconsin Supreme Court · Nov 25, 1996

Qualified immunity does not protect public officials who have allegedly violated someone's clearly established constitutional right. Anderson v. … established law' in the qualified immunity determination.

Moody v. Ungerer

18 Brief Times Rptr. 1019 · Supreme Court of Colorado · Jun 13, 1994

In evaluating a police officer’s claim of qualified immunity, a reviewing court must determine whether the right allegedly violated was “clearly established,” i.e., whether the contours of the right were sufficiently clear … Accordingly, we hold that Trooper Moody is entitled to qualified immunity.

Davis v. State

902 N.W.2d 165 · Nebraska Supreme Court · Oct 6, 2017

To show a clearly established federal right, the U.S. … clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct.140 A court can address the two compo- nents of the qualified immunity analysis in either order.141 139 See Harlow v.

Guerrero Ex Rel. Guerrero v. Alaska Housing Finance Corp.

123 P.3d 966 · Alaska Supreme Court · Nov 4, 2005

They therefore qualify as immune under Alaska’s planning-operational test of discretionary function immunity. 76 We have reached the same conclusion regarding the construction of pedestrian overpasses 77 and other highway … would bar the claim unless the project at issue — here, the A/C traffic couplet — was governed by clearly established standards that mandated their installation.

Virden v. Roper

302 Ark. 125 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Apr 23, 1990

The appealability of a denial of summary judgment based on qualified immunity from suit is clearly established. Robinson v. Beaumont, supra; Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511 (1985); and see Cohen v. … They maintain in the alternative if a violation of a constitutional right occurred, it is not a “clearly established” right and, hence, appellants are entitled to qualified immunity under Mitchell, supra.