Case law

Ochser v. Funk

225 Ariz. 484 · Court of Appeals of Arizona · Sep 28, 2010

Qualified immunity protects government officials from civil liability if a reasonable government official could have believed his actions to be lawful, in the light of clearly established law and the information he possessed … Officials are entitled to the protections of qualified immunity, unless “the law clearly proscribed the actions” that were taken. Mitchell v.

Fort Wayne Community Schools and Jacalyn Butler v. Steffanie Haney, for next friend and minor daughter, M.H.

94 N.E.3d 325 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Feb 5, 2018

And the burden is on the plaintiff to demonstrate the violation of a clearly established right. Id. … immunity because there were clearly established doctrines at the time as to what actions a caseworker must take when conducting an investigation)

Brodie Faughn and Billy Colvin v. Alfred Kennedy and Wayne Kennedy

2019 Ark. App. 570 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Dec 4, 2019

Qualified immunity protects an officer from liability in an excessive-force case unless the officer’s conduct violates a clearly established constitutional or statutory right of which a reasonable person would have known … The second step of the qualified-immunity inquiry—whether the constitutional or statutory right was clearly established at the time of the defendant’s alleged misconduct— requires the victim to point to a previously decided

Schmitt v. LANGENOUR

162 Wash. App. 397 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Jun 28, 2011

Qualified Immunity ¶14 Schmitt contends that Forbes was not entitled to qualified immunity on his § 1983 claims of false arrest, false imprisonment, and malicious prosecution because she *405 violated a clearly established … Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, “[glovemment officials performing discretionary functions” are immune from § 1983 suits “if their conduct is objectively reasonable when measured against clearly established law.”

Young v. Gila Reg'l Med. Ctr.

495 P.3d 620 · New Mexico Court of Appeals · Jun 4, 2020

(2) the right was clearly established at the time of the [alleged] conduct.” … Clearly Established {19} Having found that Plaintiff has established a constitutional violation, we turn next to the question of whether the law prohibiting the search was clearly established at the time it was conducted

Neil Nyber v. City of Battle Creek

Michigan Court of Appeals · Feb 11, 2026

Qualified immunity is applicable unless the official’s conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right. … The clearly established prong of the qualified immunity inquiry sets a high standard, and the United States Supreme Court has “aggressively enforced qualified immunity.” Morden, 275 Mich App 340-341.

Town of Southwest Ranches v. Kalam

980 So. 2d 1121 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Mar 12, 2008

a clearly established right). … As Kalam’s complaint fails to show that the town officials’ conduct violated his rights in light of clearly established law, the individual defendants are entitled to qualified immunity from suit.

Carrera v. Yepez

6 S.W.3d 654 · Texas Court of Appeals, 8th District (El Paso) · Oct 28, 1999

Since qualified immunity turns on whether a defendant violated a clearly established right, a ‘necessary concomitant’ to that decision is determining ‘whether the plaintiff has asserted a violation of a constitutional right … WERE THE CONSTITUTIONAL STANDARDS CLEARLY ESTABLISHED?

Leo v. Trevino

285 S.W.3d 470 · Texas Court of Appeals, 13th District · Jun 8, 2006

Constitutional Violation The first prong of any analysis of the availability of qualified immunity requires the establishment of the violation of a “clearly established right.” Beck, 204 F.3d at 638. … The School District Employees are entitled to qualified immunity from the Trevinos’ claims, absent a showing of a violation of “clearly established constitutional law.”

Reuter v. City of New Hope

449 N.W.2d 745 · Court of Appeals of Minnesota · Jan 2, 1990

Although the right to be free from unreasonable seizures is a clearly established right, the Supreme Court of the United States has said that a general constitutional violation alone does not dissolve the qualified immunity … The Reuters have presented no violation of a clearly established law. The Reuters assert that the case of Dick v.

Grix v. Florida Fish & Wildlife Conservation Commission

821 So. 2d 315 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · May 22, 2002

The court also found that qualified immunity shielded the officer from. liability under section 1983 because he did not violate a clearly established law concerning proper.net measurements when stopping and detaining appellant … Therefore, Millender did not “clearly establish” the method of measuring such nets.

Brown v. Meda

74 Md. App. 331 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jun 24, 1988

[emphasis added, bracketed material in original] As was clearly stated by the Court in Moore v. … The emphasized portion of that statement is simply another way of saying that, in a case involving complex medical procedures or the exercise of professional skill and judgment, a jury is not qualified to determine whether

Quinn v. Cardenas

256 Ariz. 77 · Court of Appeals of Arizona · Aug 1, 2023

¶37 Both federal and state qualified immunity require an analysis of whether Cardenas violated established law or unreasonably disregarded the unlawful nature of his conduct. … Those same conclusions—that Cardenas acted as a reasonable officer would and did not violate clearly established law—preclude the opposite finding in state court (i.e., a finding that Cardenas violated established law and

Roberts v. Swain

126 N.C. App. 712 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Jul 15, 1997

Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, “government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … However, qualified immunity could operate to shield Swain and McCracken from plaintiff’s damages suit “if ‘a reasonable officer could have believed’ ” plaintiff’s arrest “ ‘to be lawful, in light of clearly established law

Matthews v. Rakiey

38 Mass. App. Ct. 490 · Massachusetts Appeals Court · May 5, 1995

(b) Clearly established right. We must next inquire whether the defendant’s conduct nonetheless violated a clearly established right of the plaintiff. … Since the defendant’s actions were discretionary and they did not violate any clearly established rights of the plaintiff, qualified immunity was warranted.

Brown v. Jenne

122 So. 3d 881 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Aug 1, 2012

Qualified Immunity Standard “ ‘Qualified immunity shields government officials from liability for civil damages for torts committed while performing discretionary duties unless their conduct violates a clearly established … As to the second determination for qualified immunity, the Thompson court found that the excessiveness of the force was clearly established at the time of the incident, which in Thompson occurred in 1998.

Mendoza v. City of West Covina

206 Cal. App. 4th 702 · California Court of Appeal · May 8, 2012

The qualified immunity rule shields public officers from section 1983 actions unless the officer has violated a clearly established constitutional right. … The Saucier court established a two-step procedure for determining whether a defendant’s conduct was entitled to qualified immunity.

Neimes v. Kien Chung Ta

985 S.W.2d 132 · Texas Court of Appeals, 4th District (San Antonio) · Jan 11, 1999

Woo’s affirmative defense of qualified immunity because the constitutional rights that Ta and Fisher have asserted are not clearly established. … Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, as long as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would be aware, government officials performing discretionary

Merrilee Berge, V. Kitsap County

Court of Appeals of Washington · Jul 11, 2023

RECREATIONAL IMMUNITY 1. … See also Lockner, 190 Wn.2d at 532 (“To qualify for immunity under RCW 4.24.210, the landowner must establish that the land at issue was (1) open 5 No. 56865-9-II to

Huffmier v. Hamilton

30 Kan. App. 2d 1163 · Court of Appeals of Kansas · Oct 25, 2002

established law.” … Second, was the constitutional right clearly established? See McCormick, 272 Kan. at 642 .