Case law

Dillon Burnett v. Josh Griffith

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · May 12, 2022

Whether Sergeant Griffith is entitled to qualified immunity as a matter of law Qualified immunity shields government officials from civil-damages liability for violations of “clearly established statutory or constitutional … established” prong of the qualified-immunity analysis.

(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.

ESTATE OF ANDRE ALEXANDER GREEN v. CITY OF INDIANAPOLIS

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Nov 13, 2019

Qualified immunity “[Q]ualified immunity shields officials from civil liability so long as their conduct ‘does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … Dkt. 38 at 30.1 The Court exercises its discretion to begin with the second, “clearly established law” prong of the qualified-immunity test. See Pearson, 555 U.S. at 236. Mr.

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

Daniel Jackson v. Shawn Curry

888 F.3d 259 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Apr 19, 2018

That decision itself does not involve a pure legal issue regarding qualified immunity, i.e., whether the officers violated Jackson’s clearly established constitutional rights. … plausibly violated clearly established rights.

Goard v. Crown Auto, Inc.

170 F. Supp. 3d 915 · District Court, W.D. Virginia · Mar 21, 2016

Defendants’ have failed to establish Qualified Immunity Howard, Ball, Cook, and McKinley assert that qualified immunity shields them from liability for their actions. Dkt. 28 at 4.. … established' for purposes of qualified immunity.

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

City of Lakewood v. Brace

20 Brief Times Rptr. 981 · Supreme Court of Colorado · Jun 24, 1996

violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … immunity to appeal a district court’s denial of summary judgment on that defense if the issue on appeal is whether the constitutional right that was allegedly violated was “clearly established.”

Fort Wayne Community Schools and Jacalyn Butler v. Steffanie Haney, for next friend and minor daughter, M.H.

94 N.E.3d 325 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Feb 5, 2018

And the burden is on the plaintiff to demonstrate the violation of a clearly established right. Id. … immunity because there were clearly established doctrines at the time as to what actions a caseworker must take when conducting an investigation)

Dontrell Stephens v. Ric Bradshaw

879 F.3d 1157 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jan 10, 2018

the allegedly violated right was clearly established by governing case law. … Yet, Deputy Lin would still be entitled to qualified immunity if the law were not clearly established.

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

Brooks v. Sweeney

299 Conn. 196 · Supreme Court of Connecticut · Dec 14, 2010

The court further explained that, under federal law, the doctrine of qualified immunity shields government officials from civil actions arising out of their discretionary acts if such acts did not violate clearly established … clearly established law.

Doe v. Leach

128 N.M. 28 · New Mexico Court of Appeals · Jul 15, 1999

The defendant is entitled to qualified immunity unless the plaintiff demonstrates that the federal right so violated was a right “clearly established” at the time of the alleged violation. See Harlow v. … clearly established at the time of the alleged violation.”

Lancie v. Giles

132 Pa. Commw. 255 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 23, 1990

The present standard for determining if qualified immunity applies was first established in Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 , 102 S.Ct. 2727 , 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982), in which case the U.S. … Supreme Court stated that qualified immunity will be found if an official’s conduct does not violate clearly established rights which a reasonable person should have known. Id. at 818 , 102 S.Ct. at 2738 .

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.”).

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

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.

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

Froemming v. City of West Allis

District Court, E.D. Wisconsin · Feb 5, 2021

Qualified immunity provides government officials a shield from civil liability under § 1983 “insofar as their [discretionary] conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a … To defeat a defense of qualified immunity, a plaintiff need not point to a case that is 4Courts may exercise “their sound discretion in deciding which of the two prongs of the qualified-immunity analysis should be

Layland v. Stevens

171 P.3d 1070 · Wyoming Supreme Court · Dec 4, 2007

These undisputed facts establish that the Secret Service agents are entitled to qualified immunity. … Layland argues that Deputy Stevens is not entitled to qualified immunity because it was clearly established and a reasonable officer would have known that entry onto Mr.