Case law

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.

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.’”

(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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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.”

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.

Georgia Carry Org, Inc. v. Brian Kabler

580 F. App'x 695 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 29, 2014

However, because Kabler was a government official acting within his discretionary authority, we must view this question through the lens of the qualified-immunity doctrine, which immunizes such a government official from … liability unless his conduct violates clearly-established 4  Case: 14-11225 Date Filed: 08/29/2014 Page: 5 of 8 federal law.

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.

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.

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.