Case law

D.M. v. State

25 Neb. Ct. App. 596 · Nebraska Court of Appeals · Mar 13, 2018

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY Qualified immunity provides a shield from liability for public officials sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) in their individual capacities, so long as the official's conduct does not violate clearly established … Next, we consider whether this right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation.

Ana Sandoval v. County of San Diego

985 F.3d 657 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jan 13, 2021

Because we reversed the district court’s denial of qualified immunity based on the objective elements of clearly established law, we expressly declined to consider, for qualified immunity purposes, how the subjective elements … As the court explained, “we assess qualified immunity based on the law that was ‘clearly established at the time an action occurred,’” and at the time of the shooting in Kedra, “it was not yet clearly established whether

John Dobosz v. Joseph A. Walsh

892 F.2d 1135 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Dec 28, 1989

We believe that with regard to the due process claim relating to the suspension, Walsh did not violate any clearly established law. … Walsh is not entitled to qualified immunity with respect to this claim.

Carla Blake v. Don Lambert

921 F.3d 215 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Apr 5, 2019

The district court denied qualified immunity. … “Once invoked, a plaintiff bears the burden of rebutting qualified immunity by showing two things: (1) that the officials violated a statutory or constitutional right and (2) that the right was ‘clearly established at the

Duarte v. Healy

405 Mass. 43 · Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · May 10, 1989

The first was common law immunity, as variously expressed in our cases, and the second was a qualified immunity patterned after Federal qualified immunity under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 . Id. at 35, 38 . … Furthermore, the Supreme Court already had established the basic two-part test for determining to what discretionary functions the doctrine of qualified immunity applies.

Sullivan v. Coney

427 S.W.3d 682 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · May 23, 2013

right is clearly established, and (3) raised a genuine issue of fact as to whether the official would have known that the conduct violated that clearly established right. … that his conduct violated that clearly established right.

Frasier v. Evans

992 F.3d 1003 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Mar 29, 2021

Frasier’s clearly established First Amendment rights—and the district court itself said they did not—then the officers are entitled to qualified immunity. … - established-law component of the qualified-immunity standard.

Donnetta Smith v. Stoneburner

716 F.3d 926 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · May 10, 2013

In this qualified immunity case, as in all qualified immunity cases, two questions arise: whether the officers violated the Smiths’ constitutional rights, and if so whether those rights were clearly established at the time … Two appellate decisions, it is true, granted qualified immunity to officers on not- clearly-established grounds, but they each involved a fact pattern at least one prominent step removed from this one. In Malachowski v.

Lawson v. Garcia

912 P.2d 1136 · Wyoming Supreme Court · Mar 15, 1996

Qualified immunity is, of course, an affirmative defense; but once it is raised, the plaintiff has the burden of proving that the federal rights allegedly impaired by the defendant were clearly established at the time the … CONCLUSION Since Garcia failed to demonstrate that Lawson violated a clearly established federal right, Lawson is entitled to invoke the defense of qualified immunity.

Stephens v. Geoghegan

702 So. 2d 517 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Oct 17, 1997

If the public official's conduct did not violate a clearly established statutory or constitutional right, the official is immune. Here, there can be no question that the defendants satisfied their initial burden. … Because Stephens, Upman and Worlds did not violate Geoghegan's clearly established statutory or constitutional rights, as delineated in Loudermill , they are entitled to qualified immunity from his federal civil rights claim

Sharp v. Liebel

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Sep 13, 2021

He previously only raised a qualified immunity argument on that issue. … The doctrine of qualified 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

Hess v. West Virginia Division of Corrections

227 W. Va. 15 · West Virginia Supreme Court · Nov 23, 2010

The one difference in [qualified] immunity cases is that the official’s act must be shown to have violated clearly established law of which a reasonable person would have known.” … Va.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.

Boyle Ventures, LLC v. City of Fayetteville

711 S.W.3d 280 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · May 15, 2025

“A motion for summary judgment based on qualified immunity is precluded only when the plaintiff has asserted a constitutional violation, demonstrated the constitutional right is clearly established and raised a genuine … 21  would have known that the conduct violated that clearly established right.

Gentile v. Bauder

718 So. 2d 781 · Supreme Court of Florida · Sep 24, 1998

Government officials performing discretionary functions are entitled to qualified immunity from civil damages to the extent that "their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … probable cause under clearly established precedent.

Williams v. Kentucky

24 F.3d 1526 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · May 26, 1994

qualified immunity issues. … Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity on Williams’ First Amendment claim. It was clearly established that the speech Williams cites as the reason for her demotion addressed matters of public concern.

MUSE v. RHOADS

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Mar 31, 2021

"Once qualified immunity is raised, the plaintiff has the burden of establishing that his or her rights were violated and that the law concerning the proffered right 'was clearly established at the time the challenged … Muse "has the burden of establishing" that his rights were violated under "clearly established" law in order to overcome qualified immunity. Burritt, 807 F.3d at 249.

Price v. Davis

132 N.C. App. 556 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Mar 16, 1999

, and qualified immunity. … to qualified immunity.

Carter v. Cole

526 N.W.2d 209 · Court of Appeals of Minnesota · Mar 14, 1995

Normally, evaluating a claim of qualified immunity involves two inquiries: (1) “whether the plaintiff has alleged the violation of a clearly established constitutional right”; and (2) whether an officer could reasonably have … Qualified immunity ⅜ * * establishes a right not to be tried. When rules of law clearly establish public officials’ duty, the immunity defense is unavailable.

Moody v. Ungerer

18 Brief Times Rptr. 1019 · Supreme Court of Colorado · Jun 13, 1994

In evaluating a police officer’s claim of qualified immunity, a reviewing court must determine whether the right allegedly violated was “clearly established,” i.e., whether the contours of the right were sufficiently clear … Accordingly, we hold that Trooper Moody is entitled to qualified immunity.

Ashaheed v. Porcher

District Court, D. Colorado · May 26, 2020

their conduct was unreasonable in light of clearly established law.” … Because Plaintiff has failed to establish that Plaintiff’s right to maintain his beard was clearly established under the First Amendment at the time of Defendant’s conduct, the Defendant is entitled to qualified immunity