Case law

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

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.”).

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

DelPriore v. McClure

District Court, D. Alaska · Jan 3, 2020

Qualified Immunity The doctrine of qualified immunity shields government actors from civil liability under § 1983 if “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … City of Fresno, 918 F.3d 1031, 1035 (9th Cir. 2019). 67 See Pearson, 555 U.S. at 232 (“Qualified immunity is applicable unless the official’s conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right

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."

Dehn Motor Sales, LLC v. Schultz

439 Md. 460 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jul 22, 2014

But there’s enough that’s involved that it certainly raised it to qualified immunity, I mean to show that it was not clearly established. … established law, and therefore, were entitled to qualified immunity.

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.

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.’”

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.

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

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

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

United States v. John Hardimon

700 F.3d 940 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Nov 7, 2012

The judge had already asked him whether he could think clearly, and he had said he could, which implies that he didn’t think his medications were affecting his ability to think clearly. … Not being a psychiatrist, the judge could not use dosage information to infer inability to think clearly.

SUMMERVILLE v. NEW JERSEY STATE TROOPERS JOHN DOES 1-10

District Court, D. New Jersey · Apr 8, 2022

Gregory was entitled to qualified immunity for the initial stop, while holding that DSFC Ciano was entitled to qualified immunity. … The second prong of qualified immunity asks whether the right at issue was so clearly established that the officer should have known that he or she was committing a constitutional violation under the circumstances.

Kristeen Foote v. Nancy Berryhill

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jan 10, 2019

The CDIU search violated the Fourth Amendment, but the violation was not egregious because the unconstitutionality of the search was not clearly established as of February 2015, and no evidence—including footage of the … McMullen, 907 F.3d 1139, 1152–53 (9th Cir. 2018) (holding that a similar search violated the Fourth Amendment, but granting qualified immunity because it was not clearly established that the conduct was unconstitutional

Kevin McCourt v. Miguel Angel Delgado

241 W. Va. 495 · West Virginia Supreme Court · Apr 24, 2019

Under this standard, the petitioner officers contend they are entitled summary judgment based on qualified immunity because they did not violate any clearly established constitutional rights. … Under a qualified immunity analysis, we must determine whether the petitioner officers' alleged conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right.

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

Elwood v. County of Rice

423 N.W.2d 671 · Supreme Court of Minnesota · May 6, 1988

The test for immunity became whether the officials’ conduct violated “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reason *675 able person would have known.” … The court of appeals found the officers were not entitled to qualified immunity because plaintiffs’ rights under the Fourth Amendment were clearly established at the time of the incident. Creighton v. City of St.