Case law

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.

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.’”

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.