Case law

Lavigne v. Forshee

307 Mich. App. 530 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Oct 28, 2014

“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 person … Thus, in the case of a police officer, qualified immunity will not apply if the officer transgresses a right that was “clearly established,” when “‘it would be clear to a reasonable officer that [her] conduct was unlawful

Dupree v. Village of Bellwood

District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jul 13, 2022

Even if they did, they maintain that they are entitled to qualified immunity because none of their actions violated clearly established law. … Officers sometimes make mistakes; qualified immunity works to immunize them from damages suits arising from those mistakes so long as there is no transgression of clearly established law.

Seamons v. Snow

84 F.3d 1226 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · May 8, 1996

The doctrine of qualified immunity generally shields government officials performing discretionary functions “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … “Ordinarily, in order for the law to be clearly established, there must be a Supreme Court or Tenth Circuit decision on point, or the clearly established weight of authority from other courts must have found the law to be

Heard, Anthony v. HSUM Adams

District Court, W.D. Wisconsin · Jul 31, 2025

Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, a plaintiff may not obtain damages for a constitutional violation against a public official unless the plaintiff shows that the official violated clearly established … For purposes of qualified immunity, that legal duty need not be litigated and then established disease by disease or injury by injury.”).

Blanton v. Kooser

District Court, D. Kansas · May 30, 2024

Kooser and Huffman invoke qualified immunity in response to Blanton’s claim. Doc. 18 at 6, 10. Qualified immunity attempts to bal- ance competing interests. … If she states a constitutional claim, the next question is whether the law was clearly established. Discerning whether the relevant legal rule was clearly established is a narrow and context-specific exercise.

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.

(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

Latonya Burton v. West Virginia Division of Corrections and John and Jane Does

Intermediate Court of Appeals of West Virginia · Jun 27, 2025

Burton failed to plead that the respondents were in violation of a clearly established right. … The question as to whether an employee was acting within the scope of their employment relates to qualified immunity as follows: If the plaintiff identifies a clearly established right or law which has been

Caneyville Volunteer Fire Department v. Green's Motorcycle Salvage, Inc.

286 S.W.3d 790 · Kentucky Supreme Court · Jun 25, 2009

However, even if an act is discretionary, there is no immunity if it violates constitutional, statutory, or other clearly established rights, or if it is done willfully or maliciously with intent to harm, or if it is committed … Accordingly, in order to charge liability, a complainant may not merely allege injury, but must point to “a causally related Violation of a constitutional, statutory, or other clearly established right,’ ” Sloas, 201 S.W.3d

Arneson v. Jezwinski

206 Wis. 2d 217 · Wisconsin Supreme Court · Dec 20, 1996

Specifically, the circuit court judge found that Arne-son's due process rights were clearly established at the time of his suspension; therefore, Petitioners could not maintain a claim of qualified immunity. 3 The circuit … immunity turns on the objective legal reasonableness of the action, assessed in light of the legal rules that were clearly established at the time the action was taken."

Freeman v. Horst

District Court, D. Colorado · Dec 14, 2023

Once a defendant has asserted a defense of qualified immunity, the burden shifts to the plaintiff, who must establish that (1) the defendant violated a constitutional right, and (2) the right was clearly established at … Larsen, the Tenth Circuit did not expressly discuss the federal doctrine of qualified immunity or whether it was clearly established that reckless driving could violate the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution

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.

Jones v. Treubig

963 F.3d 214 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jun 26, 2020

The Qualified Immunity Standard Qualified immunity protects government officials from civil damages liability “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … Notwithstanding that the focus of this appeal is the use of a taser, not pepper spray, we have warned that “[a]n officer is not entitled to qualified immunity on the grounds that the law is not clearly established every

Nelson v. City of Albuquerque

283 F. Supp. 3d 1048 · District Court, D. New Mexico · Oct 20, 2017

Clearly Established Rights in the Qualified Immunity Analysis. … Additionally, Judge Black clearly erred by ruling that qualified immunity did not apply, because the law was not clearly established. 36 A.

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.’”

Fitts v. Witkowski

920 F. Supp. 679 · District Court, D. South Carolina · Mar 28, 1996

Qualified Immunity Finally, Defendants argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity as a matter of law. … As the foregoing analysis suggests, that issue is still not “clearly established.”

Dr. Doe v. Board of Dental Practice

2026 ME 27 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Mar 17, 2026

in their personal capacities are barred by qualified immunity. … The individual defendants are alternatively entitled to qualified immunity for the § 1983 claim because there was no clearly established right. [¶23] “Qualified immunity is meant to protect government officials

Bergquist v. Milazzo

District Court, N.D. Illinois · Sep 28, 2021

In the absence of any clearly established precedent forbidding the officers from taking action under these circumstances, Defendants remain entitled to qualified immunity on Plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment claims. … Ways, 999 F.3d 478, 491 (7th Cir. 2021) (noting that a plaintiff overcoming a qualified immunity defense must show that the wrongfulness of the defendant’s conduct was clearly established).

Campbell v. Arizona, State of

District Court, D. Arizona · Feb 13, 2023

Cortez, 34 F.4th 783 (9th Cir. 2 2022) (granting motion to dismiss based on qualified immunity because plaintiffs failed to 3 show law was so clearly established that no reasonable person in defendants’ position could … To determine whether 21 qualified immunity applies, courts must consider whether (1) the government official 22 violated the plaintiff’s constitutional right and (2) whether that right was clearly established 23

City of Highfill, Arkansas; Jeffery Brenaman, in His Official and Individual Capacities; And Mayor Michelle Rieff, in Her Official and Individual Capacities v. Shana Scantlin and Tammy Ridenhour

2025 Ark. App. 242 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Apr 23, 2025

is clearly established, and (3) raised a genuine issue of fact as to whether the official would have known that the conduct violated that clearly established right. … Under our qualified-immunity analysis, however, we agree that even if Scantlin and Ridenhour have asserted a violation of a clearly established right under the Act, they have failed to raise a genuine issue of fact as to