Case law

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.

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.

(PC) Melendez v. Diaz

District Court, E.D. California · Jul 2, 2024

The law is also “clearly established” for the purposes of qualified immunity 17 if “every reasonable official would have understood that what he is doing violates th[e] right” at 18 issue. Taylor v. … In other words, the correctional 16 officer was entitled to qualified immunity if there was no clearly established right to properly 17 conducted security checks.

Scales v. District of Columbia

973 A.2d 722 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jun 18, 2009

, ultimately holding that he was entitled to immunity because the allegations, taken as true, had “fail[ed] to establish that under the particular circumstances here [Officer] Young violated his clearly established Fomth … if the right was not clearly established at the time, the officer may still enjoy its protection.

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

Garcia v. S.U.N.Y. Health Sciences Center of Brooklyn

280 F.3d 98 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Sep 25, 2001

The Court held that Title I of the ADA, which prohibits the states, municipalities and other employers from “discri-minat[ing] against a qualified individual with a disability because of th[at] disability ... in regard to … These cases are unpersuasive because they focus exclusively on whether Congress clearly expressed its intention to condition waiver on the receipt of funds and whether the state in fact received the funds.

Gallegos v. Vernier

458 P.3d 533 · New Mexico Court of Appeals · Nov 19, 2018

Comm’rs of Curry Cty., 7 2001-NMCA-065, ¶ 30, 130 N.M. 753, 31 P.3d 1027 (concluding that the 8 defendant officers were “not entitled to qualified immunity” where “the relevant 9 law was clearly established”). … We, therefore, conclude that Plaintiff has not met her burden to 10 overcome Defendant’s qualified immunity claim because she has not shown that 11 the right arguably violated was clearly established. 12 II.

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.

Tucker v. Resha

610 So. 2d 460 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Dec 30, 1992

Tucker asserted a claim of qualified immunity, which shields from civil liability those governmental officials performing discretionary functions, to the extent "their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … The "objective reasonableness of an official's conduct" relating to the clearly established law is the proper standard, for "[i]f the law was clearly established, the immunity defense ordinarily should fail, since a reasonably

Hughes v. City of Houston

District Court, S.D. Texas · Nov 10, 2022

of qualified immunity. … The opinion further notes that qualified immunity should have been granted even if a constitutional violation had been pled because (1) “much more is needed” to demonstrate a clearly established law than for a court to

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.

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.

Kyle Petersen v. Anthony Sims, Jr.

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Aug 18, 2023

The district court properly dismissed Petersen’s action on the basis of qualified immunity because defendants’ conduct did not violate clearly established constitutional rights. See Pearson v. … Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 232 (2009) (government officials are entitled to qualified immunity where there is no violation of plaintiff’s constitutional right or the right at issue was not “clearly established” at the time

Hope v. Pelzer

536 U.S. 730 · Supreme Court of the United States · Jun 27, 2002

The Court of Appeals had assumed that the defendant in a criminal case was entitled to a degree of notice “ ‘substantially higher than the “clearly established” standard used to judge qualified immunity’ ” in civil cases … “[T]he object of the ‘clearly established’ immunity standard is not different from that of ‘fair warning’ as it relates to law ‘made specific’ for the purpose of validly applying § 242.

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.”

Fleming v. City of Bridgeport

284 Conn. 502 · Supreme Court of Connecticut · Dec 4, 2007

clearly established law or (2) it was objectively reasonable for him to believe that his actions did not violate clearly established law.” … The plaintiff contends that the municipal defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity because they violated clearly established law under the fourth amendment when they effected an unlawful seizure of her property by

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

(PC) Williams v. Pilkerten

District Court, E.D. California · May 13, 2020

Qualified 19 immunity shields government officials from civil damages unless their conduct violates “clearly 20 established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” 21 Harlow … right, and if so, whether 28 the right was clearly established.

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.