Case law

Konsionowski v. Sikorski

District Court, E.D. Wisconsin · Mar 2, 2022

The Court cannot grant Officer Sikorski qualified immunity if his actions would violate a clearly established constitutional right under either. It has been clearly established since at least Terry v. … Under Nettles-Bey, Officer Sikorski is not entitled to qualified immunity where one view of the disputed facts would result in a violation of a clearly established constitutional right.

Kevin Simmons v. G. Arnett

47 F.4th 927 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Aug 31, 2022

clearly established. … In concluding that Officer Arnett did not violate clearly established law on an incomplete view of the relevant facts, the majority’s approach diverges from the one established by qualified immunity precedent in this circuit

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.

Penterman v. Wisconsin Electric Power Co.

211 Wis. 2d 458 · Wisconsin Supreme Court · Jul 2, 1997

Qualified immunity protects government officials from civil liability if their conduct does not violate a person's clearly established constitutional rights. Harlow v. … Merely alleging a general violation of a right that may be clearly established in the constitution is insufficient to justify withholding qualified immunity. Barnhill, 166 Wis. 2d at 408 .

Treneshia Dukes v. Nicholas Deaton

852 F.3d 1035 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jan 26, 2017

Qualified immunity also protects Branham because his subordinate’s constitutional violation was not clearly established. A. Deaton is Entitled to Qualified Immunity. … Branham is entitled to qualified immunity because Deaton’s conduct was not a clearly established violation of the Fourth Amendment.

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

Alexander Sullivan, in His Individual and Official Capacities; City of Little Rock; And Keith Humphrey, in His Official Capacity as Chief of Police, City of Little Rock Police Department v. Kenneth Richardson

2026 Ark. App. 145 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Mar 4, 2026

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 … Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity shields a government official from suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 if the official’s 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.

Henriquez v. Farmers Branch Texas

District Court, N.D. Texas · Dec 8, 2021

The established procedure under which courts must address qualified immunity, once asserted, therefore “prevents a defendant entitled to immunity from being compelled to bear the costs of discovery and other pre-trial … to qualified immunity.

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.

(PC) Arrant v. Santoro

District Court, E.D. California · Nov 25, 2024

Qualified Immunity 26 The defense of qualified immunity protects “government officials ... from liability for civil 27 damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly … A court considering a 5 claim of qualified immunity must determine whether the plaintiff has alleged the deprivation of 6 an actual constitutional right and whether such a right was clearly established such that it would

Shabazz v. Dixon

District Court, M.D. Florida · Sep 27, 2019

Howards, 566 U.S. 658, 664 (2012)(“[c]ourts may grant qualified immunity on the ground that a purported right was not ‘clearly established’ by prior case law, without resolving the often ore difficult … For a right to be “clearly established” for qualified immunity purposes, “existing precedent must have placed the statutory or constitutional question beyond debate.”

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.

Jeffrey Frost & A. v. Michael Delaney & A

168 N.H. 353 · Supreme Court of New Hampshire · Nov 17, 2015

We begin by reviewing the doctrine of qualified immunity. The doctrine of qualified immunity is a creature of federal law. Id. at 42. … In other words, the official is entitled to immunity unless her actions violated “legal norms clearly established at the time of the challenged actions.” Richardson v.

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

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

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

Elizabeth Schultz v. Lindsey Ercole, DO

District Court, W.D. Texas · Mar 22, 2022

“The doctrine of qualified immunity shields officials from civil liability so long as their conduct ‘does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known … In evaluating the qualified immunity defense, courts determine “whether (1) ‘the facts alleged show the officer’s conduct violated a constitutional right’; and [(2)], ‘whether the right was clearly established.’”

Levinsky v. Diamond

151 Vt. 178 · Supreme Court of Vermont · Feb 17, 1989

So, too, we find that none of the alleged actions by the assistant attorneys general violated clearly established laws or rights, and we thus conclude that they also meet the second prong of the qualified immunity test. … In addition, their appearance violated no clearly established rights of plaintiff.

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.