Case law

Klindtworth v. Burkett

477 N.W.2d 176 · North Dakota Supreme Court · Nov 12, 1991

action is a violation) violates a clearly established right. … When a court is faced with a motion for summary judgment based on qualified immunity, the court must first determine whether or not the alleged conduct of the defendant was violative of "clearly established" law.

Nelson v. Salem State College

446 Mass. 525 · Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · Apr 13, 2006

was clearly established at the time of the alleged constitutional violation. … Indeed, an “unresolved” constitutional right, like the one presented in this case, cannot be “clearly established,” as required under the second prong of the qualified immunity test. See, e.g., Wilson v.

Jefferson County Fiscal Court v. Peerce

132 S.W.3d 824 · Kentucky Supreme Court · Feb 23, 2004

is inapplicable to his § 1983 claims and qualified immunity does not protect the individually-named official Appellants because their actions clearly violated Appellee’s well-established statutory and constitutional rights … Conversely, if the official’s actions violated a clearly established right or law, the immunity is lost and the official is hable for the violation.

Abell v. Dewey

870 P.2d 363 · Wyoming Supreme Court · Mar 15, 1994

The Court erroneously applied the law of qualified immunity, i.e. the law was not clearly established in 1990 that a state probationary employee had a property interest in continued employment, and Ap-pellee Dewey is therefore … Once a government *368 official asserts qualified immunity, the plaintiff in an action under 42 U.S.C.S. § 1983 bears the initial burden of convincing the court that the constitutional right was clearly established.

Finch v. Wemlinger

361 N.W.2d 865 · Supreme Court of Minnesota · Feb 8, 1985

Because the right was not “clearly established” on that date; and since the federal doctrine of qualified immunity was applicable, see Finch v. Wemlinger, 310 N.W.2d 66, 70 (1981); under Harlow v. … Examination of these cases demonstrates clearly that Harlow fundamentally changed the prior law by abolishing the subjective element of the qualified immunity test. See also, Davis v.

Powell v. Cooper

241 Wis. 2d 153 · Wisconsin Supreme Court · Feb 16, 2001

Cooper and Stoudt were not entitled to qualified immunity because Powell's due process claims were grounded on clearly established property and liberty interests. Id. at 19. ¶ 12. … When qualified immunity is raised as an affirmative defense, the plaintiff has the burden of demonstrating by closely analogous case law that the defendant violated a clearly established constitutional right.

Vania Minor, Individually and as Mother, Natural Guardian and Next Best Friend of D.A. v. State of Iowa, Becky Grabe, Individually and Cleo Hester, Individually

819 N.W.2d 383 · Supreme Court of Iowa · Jun 15, 2012

Accordingly, Grabe is entitled to qualified immunity as a matter of law for these alleged actions. 2. Whether Hester violated the clearly established constitutional rights of Minor or D.A. … Hester argues, however, that he is entitled to qualified immunity because Minor and D.A. failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact as to whether he violated D.A.’s clearly established constitutional right under

Parent Father Doe and Parent Mother Doe, Individually on their own behalf and as Parents and Next Friend for Minor Doe v. Western Dubuque Community School District, Jessica Pape, Dan Butler, and Scott Firzlaff, in their Official Capacities

Supreme Court of Iowa · May 9, 2025

Third, the plaintiff must plead “that the law was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation.” Id. … Do the people have a clearly established right, privilege, or immunity to be free from being rear-ended? T-boned? Side-swiped?

Wyoming State Hospital and State of Wyoming v. Mary Romine and Donald Romine, as Guardians and Conservators for and On Behalf of Justina Case, Their Ward

2021 WY 47 · Wyoming Supreme Court · Mar 25, 2021

law was clearly established and whether the defendant’s conduct was proscribed by such clearly established law without reviewing the merits of the case. … The nub of qualified immunity is the need to induce officials to show reasonable initiative when the relevant law is not “clearly established,” Harlow v.

Ortega v. Reyna

114 Nev. 55 · Nevada Supreme Court · Jan 22, 1998

Under the qualified immunity doctrine, “government officials performing discretionary functions . . . are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or … The pertinent inquiry in determining whether an officer is entitled to qualified immunity for a Fourth Amendment violation is whether a reasonable officer could have believed his conduct lawful under the clearly established

McQueen v. Williams

587 So. 2d 918 · Mississippi Supreme Court · Oct 16, 1991

The state law and the affidavits submitted by [McQueen] clearly establish that the Sheriff's actions, as done in the totality of circumstances, were totally discretionary. … a claim of violation of clearly established law."

Moresi v. State, Dept. of Wildlife & Fisheries

567 So. 2d 1081 · Supreme Court of Louisiana · Sep 6, 1990

Further, the defendants have clearly carried their burden of pleading qualified immunity. … If the defendant shows that the state constitutional right alleged to have been violated was not clearly established, the defendant is entitled to qualified immunity.

Maness v. Daily

307 P.3d 894 · Alaska Supreme Court · Aug 16, 2013

Fitzgerald.17 Under this standard, qualified immunity shields public officials from civil liability “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … established.”27 In short, because Maness cannot show pursuant to his theory of liability that the troopers violated any of his clearly established rights, the troopers are protected by qualified immunity from Maness’s excessive

Payne v. Breuer

891 S.W.2d 200 · Tennessee Supreme Court · Dec 19, 1994

In the case under submission, Breuer chose the latter and attempted to establish the affirmative defense of qualified immunity. … Thus, we hold that Breuer’s actions were not objectively reasonable under clearly established law. Therefore, Breuer is not entitled to qualified immunity.

Rowan County v. Sloas

201 S.W.3d 469 · Kentucky Supreme Court · Sep 26, 2006

official immunity; and, for the Jailer and Henderson in their individual capacities, on grounds of qualified official immunity. … THE YANERO TEST FOR QUALIFIED OFFICIAL IMMUNITY Under Yanero , public officers and employees are entitled to “qualified official immunity” for negligent conduct when the negligent act or omissions were (1) discretionary acts

Autry v. Western Kentucky University

219 S.W.3d 713 · Kentucky Supreme Court · Apr 19, 2007

However, even if an act is discretionary, there is no immunity if it violates constitutional, statutory, or other clearly established rights, or if it is done willfully or maliciously with intent to harm, or if it is committed … Viewed in this light, WKU clearly is entitled to governmental immunity.

Butler Ex Rel. Biller v. Bayer

123 Nev. 450 · Nevada Supreme Court · Oct 11, 2007

Qualified immunity under federal law In 42 U.S.C. § 1983 actions, qualified immunity protects state officials from civil liability for damages resulting from discretionary acts, so long as those acts do not violate clearly … Here, because the facts as alleged by Butler do not establish any Eighth Amendment violation, a finding of qualified immunity was appropriate under Saucier. 23 Because Smith is entitled to qualified immunity, we need not

James A. Conrad v. New Hampshire Department of Safety & a.

167 N.H. 59 · Supreme Court of New Hampshire · Nov 6, 2014

Qualified immunity protects police officers “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. … It is clear from the Supreme Court’s description of the second, “clearly established” step of the qualified immunity analysis that the second step, in turn, has two aspects.

Burkes v. Klauser

185 Wis. 2d 308 · Wisconsin Supreme Court · Jun 24, 1994

Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 641 (1987). 5 The standard of objective legal reasonableness used in determining qualified immunity requires the court to focus on the degree to which clearly established case law gives guidance to … When a court decides a motion for summary judgment based on the defense of qualified immunity, it must determine from the complaint whether the plaintiff has alleged facts establishing a claim for a violation of a clearly

PAULOS VS. FCH1, LLC

2020 NV 2 · Nevada Supreme Court · Jan 30, 2020

Mahan concluded that Officer Baca was entitled to qualified immunity because he did not violate a clearly established constitutional right. Paulos v. … Noting the two-prong showing for overcoming qualified immunity—that (1) the officers violated a constitutional right and (2) the right was clearly established—the Ninth Circuit used its