Case law

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.

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

Alexander Sullivan, in His Individual and Official Capacities; City of Little Rock; And Keith Humphrey, in His Official Capacity as Chief of Police, City of Little Rock Police Department v. Kenneth Richardson

2026 Ark. App. 145 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Mar 4, 2026

A motion for summary judgment based on qualified immunity is precluded only when the plaintiff has asserted a constitutional violation, demonstrated the constitutional right is clearly established and raised … Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity shields a government official from suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 if the official’s conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable

Kevin Simmons v. G. Arnett

47 F.4th 927 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Aug 31, 2022

clearly established. … In concluding that Officer Arnett did not violate clearly established law on an incomplete view of the relevant facts, the majority’s approach diverges from the one established by qualified immunity precedent in this circuit

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

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

the Estate of Emzie Allen, Gloria Brown, Ind., and on Behalf of All Wrongful Death Beneficiaries v. Polly Ryon Hospital Authority D/B/A Polly Ryon Memorial Hospital and Suklesh Dandona, M.D.

Texas Court of Appeals, 1st District (Houston) · Mar 3, 2005

purported expert is qualified. … that the person rendering the opinion . . . is a qualified medical expert.”)

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.”

Blankenship v. Louisville-Jefferson County Metro Government, Kentucky

District Court, W.D. Kentucky · Mar 21, 2024

clearly established at the time of the arrest.” … Mich. 2015) (holding defendant did not adequately raise qualified immunity because he “must do more than quote legal standards on what counts as clearly-established law” when “[h]e merely quote[d] standards governing the

Anderson v. California Department of Correction

District Court, N.D. California · Mar 14, 2022

Qualified Immunity 21 Defendant Ferguson argues that he is entitled to qualified immunity because he did not 22 violate Plaintiff’s Eight Amendment rights and because it … To determine whether an 11 officer is entitled to qualified immunity, the Court must consider whether (1) the officer’s conduct 12 violated a constitutional right, and (2) that right was clearly established at the time

Marshall v. County of San Diego

238 Cal. App. 4th 1095 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 22, 2015

The defense of qualified immunity "A government official sued under [section] 1983 is entitled to qualified immunity unless the official violated a statutory or constitutional right that was clearly established … immunity unless they violated a "clearly established" constitutional right.

Koch v. City of Del City

660 F.3d 1228 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Nov 2, 2011

established and thus the officer was entitled to qualified immunity. … We therefore do not need to reach the “clearly established” prong of qualified immunity to conclude that the district court correctly granted summary judgment in favor of Officer Beech. 4.

Hollis Larson v. Minnesota Sex Offender Program

Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Oct 7, 2024

immunity. … City of Duluth, 713 F.3d 1155, 1157 (8th Cir. 2013) (qualified immunity shields government officials from liability in a section 1983 action unless the official’s conduct violates a clearly established constitutional or statutory

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.

Mark Porter v. Jean Hill

402 F. App'x 285 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Nov 2, 2010

Defendants were entitled to summary judgment based on qualified immunity because the law concerning the opening of prisoners’ legal mail outside their presence was not clearly established at the time the alleged violations … Ct. 808, 822 (2009) (concluding that state officers were entitled to qualified immunity because their actions did not violate clearly established law); Sherman v.

Jeffrey Frost & A. v. Michael Delaney & A

168 N.H. 353 · Supreme Court of New Hampshire · Nov 17, 2015

We begin by reviewing the doctrine of qualified immunity. The doctrine of qualified immunity is a creature of federal law. Id. at 42. … In other words, the official is entitled to immunity unless her actions violated “legal norms clearly established at the time of the challenged actions.” Richardson v.

Thomas Cress v. Carmen Palmer, Warden, Riverside Correctional Facility

484 F.3d 844 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 5, 2007

The district court concluded that because the Supreme Court has not clearly established that post-conviction destruction is a due process violation, the petitioner’s claim in this regard could was not cognizable on federal … Clearly, it is a burden that the petitioner in this case has not been able to carry successfully. III.

Guthrie v. Guthrie

216 F. Supp. 3d 590 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 25, 2016

Citizens have a clearly established right to be free from excessive force while restrained. 57 In light of this clearly established right, district courts tend to deny qualified immunity in cases where the reasonableness … Conclusion We are not aware of a clearly established right for a citizen not to be restrained while suffering a grand mal seizure. We apply qualified immunity to Mr. Guthrie’s Fourth Amendment seizure claim.

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.

Garcia v. County of Merced

639 F.3d 1206 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · May 5, 2011

The second question is whether the right was “clearly established.” Id. at 202. … A plaintiff can sur- vive summary judgment on a defendant’s claim of qualified immunity only “if the plaintiff can both establish a substantial showing of a deliberate falsehood or reckless disregard and establish that, without