Case law

Tubbs v. Schnell

District Court, E.D. Wisconsin · Aug 16, 2023

— be clearly established”) (collecting cases); Millspaugh v. … Welfare, 937 F.2d 1172, 1176 (7th Cir. 1991) (“[S]ocial workers must settle for qualified immunity [as opposed to absolute immunity] when taking initial custody of children.”) (collecting cases).

Russell v. Butcher

District Court, S.D. West Virginia · Jul 17, 2020

Barring a showing by Plaintiff that Defendants violated a “clearly established right or law” with respect to hiring, training, and developing procedures, Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity on claims involving … ” ; , 556 U.S. at 677 (“[i]n the context of determining whether there is a violation of a clearly established right to overcome qualified immunity, purpose rather than knowledge is required...”).

In the Interest of J.c, Minor Child. D.C., Father

857 N.W.2d 495 · Supreme Court of Iowa · Dec 26, 2014

However, when paternity was clearly established in Robert, the juvenile court, upon the guardian ad li-tem’s motion and after a hearing, properly dismissed him as a necessary party. … Juvenile courts clearly have the authority to make the factual determination of whether a person qualifies as a necessary party, which inherently requires them to determine whether a person qualifies as a child’s biological

Christopher Sample v. Jason Bailey

409 F.3d 689 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · May 9, 2005

Clearly Established Right Having established that there was a constitutional violation, we turn to the second step of the qualified immunity analysis-whether the constitutional right at issue was clearly established. … to qualified immunity.

Charles Wade v. Gordon Lewis

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Sep 17, 2021

Thus, he contends that the law was not clearly established, and the district court erred in denying him qualified immunity. … In reversing the district court’s denial of qualified immunity and analyzing whether there was clearly established law, we distinguished Aldridge.

Burnard v. Oregon Sate Hospital

District Court, D. Oregon · Oct 3, 2025

For that reason, assuming Plaintiffs somehow stated a claim, Defendants would still be entitled to qualified immunity. See Kisela v. … Hughes, 584 U.S. 100, 104 (2018) (“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.”)

Hurlman v. Rice

927 F.2d 74 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Mar 4, 1991

The qualified immunity enjoyed by police officers protects them against a suit for damages “ ‘insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would … Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 , 102 S.Ct. 2727, 2738 , 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982)), or, where the rights were clearly established, insofar as it was objectively reasonable to believe that their acts did not violate those rights

Paul Stephens v. Nick Degiovanni, individually

852 F.3d 1298 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Mar 30, 2017

Qualified Immunity “Qualified immunity shields government officials from liability for civil damages for torts committed while performing discretionary duties unless their conduct violates a clearly established … “Concrete facts are generally necessary 14 “In this circuit, the law can be clearly established for qualified immunity purposes only by decisions of the U.S.

Harnage

District Court, D. Connecticut · Jun 15, 2026

“Qualified immunity shields federal and state officials from money damages unless a plaintiff pleads facts showing (1) that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was ‘clearly … “‘Even if the right was clearly established,’ a court can still find a suit blocked by qualified immunity where ‘it was objectively reasonable for the officer to believe the conduct at issue was lawful.’”

Mulligan v. Rioux

229 Conn. 716 · Supreme Court of Connecticut · Jun 28, 1994

In accordance with this established precedent, the defendants were entitled to qualified immunity as a matter of law only if, on the facts found, their conduct either did not violate “clearly established rights” of which … Fountain, supra, *742 915 F.2d 823 (“to establish the qualified immunity-defense, a police officer must satisfy one of two tests: either that his [or her] conduct did not violate ‘clearly established rights’ of which a reasonable

Fisher v. Columbus

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Dec 11, 2024

Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 526 (1985) (“Unless the plaintiff's allegations state a claim of violation of clearly established law, a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal before the commencement of discovery … Fisher to “establish that [his] conduct violated a right so clearly established that any official in his position would have clearly understood that he was under an affirmative duty to refrain from such conduct.” Id.

Esparza v. Manley

District Court, E.D. Missouri · Feb 18, 2022

“Qualified immunity shields government officials from liability in a § 1983 action unless their conduct violates a clearly established right of which a reasonable official would have known.” Burnikel v. … established is sufficient for qualified immunity.

Winchester v. Cosaineau

404 F. Supp. 2d 1262 · District Court, D. Colorado · Dec 21, 2005

If the law is clearly established, the question becomes whether the defendant’s conduct was objectively reasonable in light of the clearly established law. Breidenbach v. Bolish, 126 F.3d 1288, 1291 (10th Cir.1997). B. … Accordingly, I find that Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity, and grant their Motion for Summary Judgment. IV.

Brittany A. Karels v. Gabriel A. Storz

906 F.3d 740 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Oct 15, 2018

Qualified immunity shields a law enforcement officer from liability in a § 1983 action “unless (1) the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to [the plaintiff], establishes a violation of a constitutional or statutory … We may not “define clearly established law at a high level of generality,” but rather must determine “whether the violative nature of particular conduct is clearly established.” Id.

Berry v. Texas Woman's University

District Court, E.D. Texas · Mar 25, 2021

on qualified immunity[.]” … “[G]eneral propositions of law defined at ‘high levels of generality’ are insufficient to define clearly established law for purposes of defeating qualified immunity.” Perniciaro v.

BARGE v. CITY OF ENGLEWOOD

District Court, D. New Jersey · Jul 31, 2025

Stated more generally: once the defendants have started things off by raising qualified immunity, who has to come forward and show what the “clearly established” law actually is? … If he does not come forward with sufficiently on-point indications that the relevant law is “clearly established,” then the defendant gets qualified immunity. See Davis v.

Hattie Tanner v. David Walters

98 F.4th 726 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 15, 2024

Government officials performing discretionary functions are entitled to qualified immunity from civil liability “when their conduct ‘does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a  No. … “When a defendant invokes qualified immunity in a motion for summary judgment, the plaintiff must offer sufficient evidence to create a genuine dispute of fact that the defendant violated a clearly established right.”

Sims v. Morton

421 U.S. 908 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 14, 1975

Roland Edger v. Krista McCabe

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Oct 20, 2023

Hollowell, 59 F.3d 1203, 1206 (11th Cir. 1995) (explaining that the qualified immunity inquiry under “clearly established law” is whether there was “arguable probable cause”). … Where we part ways with the district court is on the issue of arguable probable cause or the “clearly established law” prong of the qualified immunity analysis.

Rebecca Buddenberg v. Robert Weisdack

939 F.3d 732 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Sep 20, 2019

As relevant here, Budzik argued that he was entitled to qualified immunity because Buddenberg’s complaint failed to allege facts establishing a violation of a clearly established First Amendment right. … “When a defendant appeals the denial of a motion to dismiss based on qualified immunity, we review de novo whether the complaint alleges [a] violation of a clearly established constitutional right.” Id.