Case law

Durstein v. Alexander

District Court, S.D. West Virginia · Sep 20, 2022

Qualified Immunity Although qualified immunity is expansive, a government official “who performs an act clearly established to be beyond the scope of his discretionary authority … However, “in considering whether constitutional rights were clearly established for qualified-immunity purposes, we view the issue from ‘the layman’s perspective.’” Bland v.

Quintanilla v. Bryson

District Court, S.D. Georgia · Mar 20, 2020

Under the Eleventh Circuit’s framework for applying this step of the qualified immunity analysis, a plaintiff must show that the allegedly violated right was “clearly established” in one of three ways. … Irvin, 496 F.3d 1189, 1209 (11th Cir. 2007) (district court erred in denying qualified immunity where plaintiff did not show law was clearly established). The Court’s own research has likewise revealed none.

SANDERS

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 22, 2025

Qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary acts from civil liability so long as their conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … Therefore, the Court need not assess the “clearly established” prong of the qualified immunity analysis. See Ely.

Michael v. State

115 P.3d 517 · Alaska Supreme Court · Jun 9, 2005

Applying the clearly erroneous standard of review, the court of appeals affirmed the superior court’s rejection of Michael’s proposed mitigating factors. … ’s rejection of Michael’s proposed mitigating factors under a clearly erroneous standard.

ARREY

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 10, 2025

“An official sued under § 1983 for an alleged constitutional violation is entitled to qualified immunity unless [the official] (1) violated a constitutional right that (2) was clearly established when he acted.” … So, Zebley is entitled to qualified immunity “if a reasonable officer could have believed that probable cause existed” to arrest the Arrey “in light of clearly established law and the information the [arresting] officers

Melville v. Southward

14 Brief Times Rptr. 608 · Supreme Court of Colorado · May 14, 1990

Hogan, 292 Or. 154 , 637 P.2d 114 (1981) (orthopedic surgeons were properly qualified to testify on standard of care for podiatric surgery where foundation evidence established that orthopedic and podiatric procedure, practice … Clearly, when a proper foundation establishes that the expert witness, by reasons of knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education, is so substantially familiar with the standard of care applicable to the defendant

Hazle v. Ford Motor Co.

464 Mich. 456 · Michigan Supreme Court · Jul 3, 2001

Therefore, we hold that a plaintiff is not required to provide evidence that he is at least as qualified as the successful candidate in order to establish a prima facie case under McDonnell Douglas. … We caution the bench and bar not to rely on Lytle for the proposition that a prima facie case of unlawful discrimination can be established merely by providing evidence that a qualified minority candidate was rejected

Roe v. Johnson County

District Court, N.D. Texas · Feb 18, 2021

No. 284—is needed to establish that Blankenship is not entitled to qualified immunity. … Jan. 18, 2021) (Under the clearly-established prong, “‘the dispositive question is whether the violative nature of particular conduct is clearly established.’

Charles v. Grief

522 F.3d 508 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Nov 28, 2007

qualified immunity in which the trial court has determined that the factual dispute is “genuine”; only when denial of qualified immunity turns on whether a genuinely disputed fact is “material” are we authorized to review … unwarranted appeal of an interlocutory denial of qualified immunity.

Santor v. Laster

District Court, E.D. California · Aug 25, 2020

Qualified Immunity 2 Qualified immunity applies when an official’s conduct does not violate clearly established 3 statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. White v. … City of Roseville, 882 F.3d 843, 856-57 (9th Cir. 2018) (noting that Ninth Circuit precedent is 15 sufficient to meet the “clearly established” prong of qualified immunity).

Emma Jane Prospero v. Deputy Ryan Sullivan

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Sep 4, 2025

“[W]hen legal questions of qualified immunity are raised—either to determine whether any constitutional right was violated or whether the violation of that right was clearly established—interlocutory … Because a defendant’s “assertion of qualified immunity can be defeated only by a showing of ‘clearly established’ law, we will review not for actual probable cause but rather for ‘arguable’ probable

Cousins v. Lockyer

568 F.3d 1063 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jun 15, 2009

qualified immunity. … Qualified immunity protects government officials from civil liability if “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v.

Ryan v. Bell

District Court, N.D. New York · Jan 3, 2024

“Qualified immunity shields government officials from civil damages liability unless the official violated a statutory or constitutional right that was clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct.” … July 2, 2020) (finding corrections officer entitled to qualified immunity because he held an objectively reasonable belief his actions were lawful, particularly in light of that fact that “there is no clearly established

Watkins v. City of St. Louis, Missouri

District Court, E.D. Missouri · Sep 28, 2022

The Individual Defendants argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity. “Qualified immunity shields government officials from liability in a § 1983 action unless their Burnikel v. … to qualified immunity.

Pagán v. Calderón

448 F.3d 16 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · May 16, 2006

To the extent that Calderon’s denied motion rested on the ground of qualified immunity, she appealed. See Mitchell v. … In sequential order, “[w]e consider (i) whether the plaintiffs allegations, if true, establish a constitutional violation; (ii) whether the constitutional right at issue was clearly established at the time of the putative

Nicholas Narducci v. Gregory Moore

Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jul 9, 2009

The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials from lawsuits for damages when their conduct did not violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have … Here, because defendants argue that Narducci’s Fourth Amendment rights were not violated and that the violation of this right was not “clearly established,” we will consider both issues in turn. A.

Francis v. Coughlin

891 F.2d 43 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Dec 4, 1989

To defeat an official’s claim of qualified immunity, the individual's right must have been clearly established at the time of the alleged violation. Id. … clearly established.

Laura Skop v. City of Atlanta, Georgia

485 F.3d 1130 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · May 3, 2007

Was the Violation Clearly Established? … The second qualified immunity inquiry is, in the context of this case, straightforward: our binding precedent clearly established, at the time of Skop’s arrest, that an arrest made without arguable probable cause violates

Kirby v. City of Elizabeth City

388 F.3d 440 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Nov 3, 2004

First, Chief Hampton and Lieutenant Koch are entitled to qualified immunity. … Government officials performing discretionary functions are entitled to qualified immunity from liability for civil damages to the extent that "their conduct does not violate clearly established stat- utory or constitutional

KIRBY v. BOROUGH OF WOODCLIFF LAKE

District Court, D. New Jersey · Aug 20, 2024

To overcome qualified immunity Plaintiff must establish “(1) that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was ‘clearly established’ at the time of the challenged conduct.” … Because there are no material facts in dispute that support that Plaintiff’s clearly established rights were violated, Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity.