Case law

Cody Walton v. Robert Dawson

752 F.3d 1109 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · May 20, 2014

law relating to qualified immunity.’ ” Lockridge v. … ; and (2) the right was clearly established at the time of the deprivation.”

Perkins

District Court, M.D. Alabama · Feb 17, 2026

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity shields government officials from personal liability “for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established … allege a violation of clearly established law.”

Pueblo of Pojoaque v. New Mexico

214 F. Supp. 3d 1028 · District Court, D. New Mexico · Sep 30, 2016

Qualified Immunity Motion Reply at 9. With respect to the clearly established prong, the Individual Defendants argue that the Plaintiffs still fail to establish a violation of a clearly established right. … Clearly Established Rights in the Qualified Immunity Analysis.

HINDMAN v. CITY OF PITTSBURGH, PENNSYLVANIA

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 16, 2024

The basis for his assertion is strangely worded, but he appears to be arguing that the constitutional right was not “clearly established” at the time he acted because “[t]here is no clearly established right to be free … the defendant’s conduct violated a clearly established right.”

Lee v. Denver Public Schools

District Court, D. Colorado · Oct 6, 2022

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity is a question of law, although disputes of fact that necessarily inform the qualified immunity analysis may go to a jury. Maestas v. … City of Las Cruces, 584 F.3d 888, 895–902 (10th Cir. 2009) (qualified immunity unavailable at summary judgment where the plaintiff's version of the facts, if believed, would constitute a violation of a clearly established

Arneson v. Jezwinski

225 Wis. 2d 371 · Wisconsin Supreme Court · May 5, 1999

In its decision, the circuit court identified the rule governing its qualified immunity inquiry: the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity unless the plaintiffs rights were clearly established in the law, such that … a defense of qualified immunity. ¶ 29.

Keil v. TRIVELINE

720 F. Supp. 2d 1088 · District Court, W.D. Missouri · Jun 24, 2010

However, subsequent United States Supreme Court cases reveal that limited discovery on the qualified immunity issue is allowed, so long as the plaintiffs allegations state a violation of clearly established law. … In Mitchell, the Court opined, Unless the plaintiffs allegations state a claim of violation of clearly established law, a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal before the commencement of discovery

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.

Millender v. County of L.A.

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · May 6, 2009

Katz, 533 U.S. 194, outlined a two-step approach to qualified immunity. … I would affirm the district court’s denial of qualified immunity, and I respectfully dissent.

Morden v. Grand Traverse County

275 Mich. App. 325 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Aug 29, 2007

established at the time, so qualified immunity applied to damages claim). … Because there was no court precedent predating Conlon’s actions that clearly established that such actions by a psychiatrist constitute deliberate indifference, we find that Conlon was cloaked with qualified immunity for

Lawson v. S.W.V.R.J.A.

District Court, W.D. Virginia · Feb 3, 2020

Pelzer, 536 U.S. 730, 736 (2002) (“The threshold inquiry a court must undertake in a qualified immunity analysis is whether plaintiff’s allegations, if true, establish a constitutional violation.”) … Furthermore, “[u]nless 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.”

Clifford J Ochser v. Gerard funk/anthony Cruz

228 Ariz. 365 · Arizona Supreme Court · Dec 21, 2011

Although we hold that Ochser’s arrest was an unreasonable seizure prohibited by the Fourth Amendment, we conclude that the deputies are entitled to qualified immunity because then-existing law did not clearly establish … Clearly Established Law ¶26 We now turn to the second step of the qualified- immunity analysis — whether the right was clearly established at the time of Ochser’s arrest.

Daniel Jackson v. Shawn Curry

888 F.3d 259 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Apr 19, 2018

That decision itself does not involve a pure legal issue regarding qualified immunity, i.e., whether the officers violated Jackson’s clearly established constitutional rights. … plausibly violated clearly established rights.

Raden v. Fleming

District Court, M.D. Alabama · Sep 19, 2025

Qualified immunity protects government officials from suit when they perform “discretionary functions” and “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … the Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity.

Benjamin v. Washington State Bar Ass'n

980 P.2d 742 · Washington Supreme Court · Jul 22, 1999

No qualified immunity for violation of a clearly established right. Harwick's threshold defense is qualified immunity. [1] Harlow v. … Clearly, qualified immunity is appropriate only where assertions of fact by the plaintiff do not rise to the level of a clearly established constitutional violation.

Rosenberger v. Kootenai County Sheriff's Department

140 Idaho 853 · Idaho Supreme Court · Dec 17, 2004

If A Constitutional Right Was Arguably Violated, The Right Was Not Clearly Established. … based on qualified immunity is proper.

Barnhill v. Board of Regents of the UW System

166 Wis. 2d 395 · Wisconsin Supreme Court · Feb 12, 1992

From Anderson , we glean several guidelines concerning the level of generality afforded to "clearly established law" in the qualified immunity determination. … Merely alleging a general violation of a right that may be clearly established by the constitution or a statute is insufficient clarity of established law to justify withholding qualified immunity.

Burkhart v. Saxbe

596 F. Supp. 96 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 22, 1984

Whether an official may prevail in his qualified immunity defense depends upon the “objective reasonableness of [his] conduct as measured by reference to clearly established law.” ... … No other “circumstances” are relevant to the issue of qualified immunity. We conclude that the District Court correctly held that appellee has demonstrated no violation of his clearly established constitutional rights.

ESTATE OF ANDRE ALEXANDER GREEN v. CITY OF INDIANAPOLIS

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Nov 13, 2019

Qualified immunity “[Q]ualified immunity shields officials from civil liability so long as their conduct ‘does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … Dkt. 38 at 30.1 The Court exercises its discretion to begin with the second, “clearly established law” prong of the qualified-immunity test. See Pearson, 555 U.S. at 236. Mr.

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.”