Case law

Gary Orlowski v. Milwaukee County, Wisconsin

872 F.3d 417 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Sep 18, 2017

Defendants Not Entitled to Qualified Immunity The first question we must address is whether Alexander and Manns (“Defendants”) are entitled to qualified immun- ity. … Manns that could impact qualified immunity analysis.

Fasciana v. Electronic Data Systems Corp.

829 A.2d 160 · Court of Chancery of Delaware · Feb 27, 2003

As to these allegations, Fasciana is clearly being held to account for representations he made to third parties - Kidder and GECC - as an agent of EDS. … Notwithstanding the use of the term "escrow agent" it is clearly established that "[a]n escrow holder is not as such an agent of either party to the transaction until the event occurs which terminates the escrow relation.

Matson v. Hrabe

612 F. App'x 926 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · May 22, 2015

Hrabe was entitled to qualified immunity because Mr. Matson failed to show a violation of a constitutional right that was clearly established at the time of action. See Pearson v. … Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 232 (2009) (discussing two-prong qualified-immunity test).

Parks v. Taylor

District Court, W.D. Oklahoma · Mar 23, 2022

Qualified immunity protects public officials from suit “so long as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … For these reasons, and because “the right to be free from unduly tight handcuffing [is] ‘clearly established,’” Mr. Yerby is not entitled to qualified immunity at this stage.

Miller v. Power

District Court, D. Utah · May 7, 2025

Clearly Established Law As to the second prong of qualified immunity, it is Plaintiff’s burden to show that his rights in the circumstances were clearly established at the time of … established’ constitutional rights ‘of which a reasonable person would have known.’”165 This standard uses identical language as the standard for qualified immunity—“[t]o be considered clearly established, ‘[t]he contours

Baker v. Chaplin

517 N.W.2d 911 · Supreme Court of Minnesota · Jun 30, 1994

Id. at 396 , 109 S.Ct. at 1872 . 5 Many courts have found the law prohibiting excessive force to be clearly established *915 for qualified immunity purposes. See, e.g., Street v. … as asserted by the defendant, the defendant's actions violated clearly established law and are therefore not within the scope of the qualified immunity.

Adedeji v. Hoder

935 F. Supp. 2d 557 · District Court, E.D. New York · Mar 27, 2013

Qualified immunity protects government officials from . civil damages liability “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known … (2) “whether the right at -issue was ‘clearly established’ at the time of defendant’s alleged ¿misconduct.” .

Nina Yoder v. University of Louisville

526 F. App'x 537 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · May 15, 2013

The qualified-immunity doctrine shields government officials performing discretionary functions from civil liability unless their conduct violates clearly established rights. Barker v. … clearly established.

Board of Regents of State v. Snyder

826 So. 2d 382 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Jul 19, 2002

Qualified immunity protects government actors performing discretionary functions from liability and suit for civil damages *390 unless their conduct violates clearly established federal statutory or constitutional rights. … Thus, qualified immunity in this case hinges upon whether Mr. Snyder's First Amendment right was clearly established.

Webb v. English

District Court, M.D. Florida · Sep 23, 2021

First, decisions at the district court level, like the one in Baker, are insufficient to clearly establish the law for purposes of a qualified immunity analysis. … Even so, in the context of qualified immunity, posed-but-undecided questions of constitutionality do not clearly establish a right.

Jensen, Madison Jody the Estate of v. Duchesne County

District Court, D. Utah · Sep 15, 2022

immunity protects government officials ‘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.’” … Gomez, 745 F.3d 405, 411 (10th Cir. 2014) (“The plaintiff “bear[s] the ultimate burden of persuasion at trial to overcome qualified immunity by showing a violation of clearly established federal law.”).

Public Citizen, Inc. v. Department of Justice and National Archives and Records Administration

111 F.3d 168 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Apr 22, 1997

The Presidential Records Act establishes an elaborate structure for the management of Presidential records. The United States retains ownership, possession and control. 44 U.S.C. § 2202 (1994). … The former President clearly qualifies as an expert on the implications of disclosure of Presidential records from his administration.

Blevins v. Hudson

489 S.W.3d 165 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Apr 7, 2016

Qualified immunity shields government officials from liability for civil damages when they are performing discretionary functions “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … Thus, courts evaluating a claim of qualified immunity must determine whether the-plaintiff has alleged the deprivation of an actual constitutional right and, if so, whether that right was clearly established at the time of

W. Va. State Police, Corporal R.D. Eshbaugh v. Victoria Hughes, Administratrix

238 W. Va. 406 · West Virginia Supreme Court · Jan 26, 2017

involved conduct did not violate clearly established laws of which a reasonable official would have known.”). 7 Maston v. … The record clearly establishes that the November Troopers searched the quarry, and in that search found and recovered some of Mr. Hughes’s remains.

Warr v. Liberatore

District Court, W.D. New York · Aug 29, 2019

Qualified Immunity “The doctrine of qualified immunity shields officials from civil liability so long as their conduct ‘does not violate clearly established statutory or … was ‘clearly established’ at the time of defendant’s alleged misconduct.”

Puglia v. Nienhuis

District Court, M.D. Florida · Mar 31, 2023

Qualified immunity protects government officials performing discretionary functions from being sued in their individual capacities unless their conduct violates a clearly established … immunity defense, the plaintiff bears the burden of proving the existence of a clearly established right.

Banks v. Jones

575 S.W.3d 111 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jun 6, 2019

Public officials are entitled to qualified immunity from damages under Section 1983 unless they transgress "clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known." … Banks is entitled to qualified immunity unless (1) the facts alleged, construed in a light most favorable to Jones, establish a violation of a constitutional or statutory right, and (2) the right was clearly established at

The Estate of Gary Brannon v. Franklin

District Court, M.D. Alabama · Sep 6, 2024

Qualified immunity immunizes Sheriff Franklin from liability if the Second Amended Complaint fails to state a violation of a “clearly established statutory or constitutional right[] of which a reasonable person would have … “It is therefore appropriate for a district court to grant the defense of qualified immunity at the motion to dismiss stage if the complaint ‘fails to allege the violation of a clearly established constitutional right.’

Pittsley

District Court, E.D. California · Oct 1, 2025

of showing that the 27 rights allegedly violated were ‘clearly established.’” … constitutes an Eighth Amendment violation, defendant is entitled 12 to qualified immunity. 13 Qualified immunity protects “all but the plainly 14 incompetent or those who knowingly

Sims v. Diaz

District Court, N.D. California · Mar 23, 2021

was “clearly established” at the time of the alleged misconduct. … 27 Fever spores—was not clearly established at the time”); Horton v.