Case law

Arnzen v. State

123 Idaho 899 · Idaho Supreme Court · May 13, 1993

Thus, in order to determine whether Richardson, in his individual capacity, was entitled to qualified immunity, we must ask: 1. Was there a clearly established law; 2. … This prong of the qualified immunity analysis is a compound question: (1) did Arnzen have a clearly established right; and (2) did Richardson’s conduct violate it?

J.H. v. West Virginia Division of Rehabilitation Services

224 W. Va. 147 · West Virginia Supreme Court · Jul 27, 2009

Va.Code, 29-12A-1, et seq., 11 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. … Unless the plaintiff’s allegations state a claim of violation of clearly established law, a defendant pleading immunity is entitled to dismissal before the commencement of discovery.”

Haywood v. Alexander

121 So. 3d 972 · Supreme Court of Alabama · Feb 22, 2013

‘An official is entitled to qualified immunity if he is performing discretionary functions and his actions do “ ‘not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known … Jenkins’s ‘complaint allege[s] the violation of a clearly established constitutional right.’ Ex parte Alabama Department of Youth Services, 880 So.2d at 402 .

Dorwart v. Caraway

312 Mont. 1 · Montana Supreme Court · Oct 30, 2002

established. … There we held that the law on which Dorwart relied in asserting his federal claim was not clearly established at the time that it was violated.

Melene James v. City of Boise

158 Idaho 713 · Idaho Supreme Court · May 21, 2015

The Court explained why the “clearly established law” could not be so general that it would eliminate the rule of qualified immunity. … With respect to qualified immunity, the court of appeals held that there was no clearly established law that the officer’s “use of a police dog to search and bite was unconstitutional.” Id. at 1092 .

Durso v. Taylor

624 A.2d 449 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jan 29, 1993

“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 of the conduct … Qualified immunity: objective legal reasonableness. Even if Durso had violated Taylor’s right to due process, we hold that he had qualified immunity for his actions.

Ex parte B.T. Roberts, in his capacity as a member of the Auburn University Board of Trustees PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS (In re: Patti H. Northcutt and Walter M. Northcutt v. B.T. Roberts, in his capacity as a member of the Auburn University Board of Trustees) (Lee Circuit Court: CV-22-900114).

Supreme Court of Alabama · Jun 27, 2025

'To overcome qualified immunity, the plaintiff must satisfy a two-prong test; he must show that: (1) the [public official] violated a constitutional right, and (2) this right was clearly established at the … as follows: "To defeat Lawton's qualified immunity, Echols must also prove that Lawton violated a constitutional right that 'was "clearly established" at the time of the challenged conduct.'

Henes v. Morrissey

194 Wis. 2d 338 · Wisconsin Supreme Court · Jun 27, 1995

The relevant inquiry in a qualified immunity case is: [ W]hether a reasonable state official could have believed his or her act was constitutional "in light of clearly established law and the information [he or she] possessed … 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 officials *347 faced with a particular

Jackie L. Brown, II v. City of Montgomery

233 W. Va. 119 · West Virginia Supreme Court · Feb 20, 2014

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. … 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

Christopher H. Harris v. Asa Hutchinson, Individually and in His Official Capacity as Governor of the State of Arkansas; And Patrick Fisk, Individually and in His Official Capacity

591 S.W.3d 778 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jan 9, 2020

The General Assembly clearly intended to subject the State to liability under the AWBA. Ark. Code Ann. § 21-1-602(5); Smith v. … , the legislature has established the Arkansas State Claims Commission so that claims against the State may be addressed while preserving the State’s sovereign immunity.

Johnson v. Morris

453 N.W.2d 31 · Supreme Court of Minnesota · Mar 23, 1990

Qualified immunity is available if the officer did “not violate clearly established stat *39 utory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. … Simply stated, if the law the officer allegedly violated was “clearly established” there would exist no immunity, but, if not, qualified immunity would be available. Harlow, 457 U.S. at 819 , 102 S.Ct. at 2738-39 .

Lubcke v. Boise City/Ada County Housing Authority

124 Idaho 450 · Idaho Supreme Court · Sep 9, 1993

Under Harlow , Worrell is entitled to qualified immunity only if she did not violate clearly established constitutional law. … Thus, Worrell should be immune from suit *465 if: a) it was not clearly established law in 1986 that a public employee may not be terminated for her exercise of her First Amendment rights, and b) it was not clearly established

City of Lancaster v. Chambers

37 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 980 · Texas Supreme Court · Jun 15, 1994

judgment on qualified immunity is improper.”). … First, federal immunity may be conferred at the summary judgment stage by the court’s finding that the constitutional right at issue was not clearly established. Elder v.

Barnthouse v. City of Edmond

74 O.B.A.J. 1297 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Apr 22, 2003

Material issues of fact for a jury exist as to: (1) whether Cochran violated Appellants' clearly established constitutional rights for purposes of his individual qualified immunity defense to the § 1988 claim; and (@)whether … Whether Cochran is entitled to qualified immunity where his conduct violated Appellants' right to due process (a constitutional right), and that right was violated by Cochran when it was clearly established at the time of

West Virginia Department of Health, Office of the Chief Medical Examiner, and Allen R. Mock, M.D. v. Dr. Patsy Cipoletti, Jr., Administrator of the Estate of June Cipoletti

West Virginia Supreme Court · May 21, 2024

whether qualified immunity applies on a “case-by-case basis.” 7 We recently summarized our qualified immunity jurisprudence as follows: Qualified immunity is an immunity from suit afforded … Va. 573, 587, 10 Respondent relies on the MPLA as the basis for his position that he has alleged the violation of a “clearly established statutory right” to defeat Petitioners’ claim to qualified immunity

Fulwood v. Porter

639 A.2d 594 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Mar 28, 1994

in light of the legal rules that were ‘clearly established’ at the time it was taken.” … Roberts, 823 F.2d 235, 238 (8th Cir.1987) (“clearly established law” for immunity purposes is supervisor’s duty in the particular circumstances to train adequately).

Sabir v. District of Columbia

755 A.2d 449 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jun 22, 2000

Absent violation of “a clearly established right,”a police officer will not be subject to § 1983 liability. Id. at 1015. As the D.C. Circuit articulated the standard in Wardlaw v. … Generally, the review of a deniál of qualified immunity is a question of law — “whether the legal norms allegedly violated by the defendant were clearly established at the time of the challenged actions.” Mitchell v.

Lamb v. Holmes

162 S.W.3d 902 · Kentucky Supreme Court · May 19, 2005

establish searches conducted in either described manner would be unreasonable, and therefore the teachers/administrators are entitled to qualified immunity. … Qualified immunity protects state and local officials who carry out executive and administrative functions from personal liability so long as their actions do not violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights

B.R. v. West Virginia DHHR

West Virginia Supreme Court · Oct 13, 2020

In affirming the circuit court’s decision, this Court found that pleading simple negligence, without a violation of a clearly established right, is insufficient to overcome qualified immunity. … I. reveals that this Court reviewed the pleadings and found that “[p]leading simple negligence, without a violation of a clearly established right, is insufficient to overcome qualified immunity.” B.R.I., at *2. In B.

McKinsey v. Vernon

130 Idaho 354 · Idaho Supreme Court · Jun 5, 1997

The three-part inquiry to determine if a public official asserting qualified immunity is entitled to the defense is: 1. Was there a clearly established law? 2. … Did the conduct of the party asserting qualified immunity violate a clearly established right of the party claiming the violation? 3. Was the conduct of the party asserting qualified immunity reasonable? Farnworth v.