Case law

McCormick v. Board of Shawnee County Comm'rs

272 Kan. 627 · Supreme Court of Kansas · Dec 7, 2001

Waiver of qualified immunity. … fact, which if proven, would demonstrate a violation of clearly established law.

Heleba v. Allbee

160 Vt. 283 · Supreme Court of Vermont · Jan 17, 1992

We conclude, however, that defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. A. … Thus, the test is an objective one, requiring a determination of the objective reasonableness of an official’s conduct, as measured by reference to clearly established law. Harlow, 457 U.S. at 818 .

Ministerio Roca Solida v. Sharon McKelvey

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · May 4, 2016

Additionally, the Court finds that qualified immunity does not apply.” … Ct. 2074, 2080 (2011) (“Qualified immunity shields federal and state officials from money damages . . . .”).

Frank Steffensen v. Casey Mayhew

452 F. App'x 793 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Oct 7, 2011

The district court properly granted summary judgment to Mayhew on the basis of qualified immunity because Mayhew’s authorization of a probationary search of a vehicle was not a clear violation of Steffensen’s Fourth Amendment … Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 243-44 (2009) (qualified immunity shields “an officer from personal liability when an officer reasonably believes that his or her conduct complies with the law,” and “where clearly established law

Jack Harris, II v. City of Roseburg, Municipal Corporation, John Miller and Les Bergman

664 F.2d 1121 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Dec 28, 1981

Strickland, 420 U.S. 308, 321-22 , 95 S.Ct. 992, 1000-1001 , 43 L.Ed.2d 214 (1975), the Court held that the qualified immunity granted to public officials requires elements of both “objective” and “subjective” good faith. … Strickland rule, the immunity defense would be unavailing to petitioners if the constitutional right allegedly infringed by them was clearly established at the time of their challenged conduct, if they knew or should have

Reuter v. City of New Hope

449 N.W.2d 745 · Court of Appeals of Minnesota · Jan 2, 1990

Although the right to be free from unreasonable seizures is a clearly established right, the Supreme Court of the United States has said that a general constitutional violation alone does not dissolve the qualified immunity … The Reuters have presented no violation of a clearly established law. The Reuters assert that the case of Dick v.

Garcia v. Casey

District Court, N.D. Alabama · Aug 1, 2019

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity protects government officials performing discretionary functions from individual capacity suits unless the official violates “clearly established statutory … So, the burden then shifts to Plaintiffs to establish that qualified immunity is not appropriate in this case.

Gutshall v. New Prime, Inc.

196 F.R.D. 43 · District Court, W.D. Virginia · Jul 19, 2000

The work product doctrine is not a "privilege,” but a sort of "qualified immunity” from discovery, originally established in Hickman v.

Smith v. Harris

District Court, D. Maryland · Sep 30, 2019

The doctrine of qualified immunity shields government officials “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … he sat restrained in handcuffs— was not clearly established at the time of the incident.

Addington v. Wells

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Apr 6, 2023

On the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis (i.e., whether the right in question was clearly established), the court denied Wells qualified immunity by “conclud[ing] that an inmate’s right to adequate medical … “But, to overcome qualified immunity, the plaintiff’s version of those disputed facts must also constitute a violation of clearly established law.” Id.

Schmitt v. LANGENOUR

162 Wash. App. 397 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Jun 28, 2011

Qualified Immunity ¶14 Schmitt contends that Forbes was not entitled to qualified immunity on his § 1983 claims of false arrest, false imprisonment, and malicious prosecution because she *405 violated a clearly established … Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, “[glovemment officials performing discretionary functions” are immune from § 1983 suits “if their conduct is objectively reasonable when measured against clearly established law.”

Constantine v. Rectors and Visitors of George Mason University

411 F.3d 474 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Jun 13, 2005

In the qualified-immunity context, the Supreme Court has stressed "the importance of resolving immunity questions at the earliest possible stage in litigation." Saucier v. … GMU waived whatever Eleventh Amendment immunity it had when it accepted federal funds under a statute that clearly and unambiguously conditioned receipt of such funds on a waiver of immunity.

Rich v. State of New York

District Court, S.D. New York · Mar 31, 2022

immunities established at common law. … Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, an official is immune from liability “only when in light of clearly established law and the information the official possesses, it was objectively reasonable for him to think that

Lyons v. City of Lewiston

666 A.2d 95 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Oct 19, 1995

“The two-part test for denial of qualified immunity is (1) whether the plaintiffs constitutional rights were violated, and (2) whether those rights were so clearly established that reasonable defendants would have known that … As we have recently stated, The application of the qualified immunity doctrine turns on the “objective legal reasonableness” of the official’s action viewed in fight of the “clearly established” legal rules at the time the

Young v. Gila Reg'l Med. Ctr.

495 P.3d 620 · New Mexico Court of Appeals · Jun 4, 2020

(2) the right was clearly established at the time of the [alleged] conduct.” … Clearly Established {19} Having found that Plaintiff has established a constitutional violation, we turn next to the question of whether the law prohibiting the search was clearly established at the time it was conducted

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.

Neil Nyber v. City of Battle Creek

Michigan Court of Appeals · Feb 11, 2026

Qualified immunity is applicable unless the official’s conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right. … The clearly established prong of the qualified immunity inquiry sets a high standard, and the United States Supreme Court has “aggressively enforced qualified immunity.” Morden, 275 Mich App 340-341.

Morant v. New Haven

District Court, D. Connecticut · Oct 3, 2025

“Even in the absence of probable cause, a police officer is entitled to qualified immunity where (1) [his] conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would … See Weaver, 40 F.3d at 536–37 (recognizing that it was “clearly established [as early as] 1989 that police could not lawfully coerce incriminating statements from an in-person criminal suspect” and denying qualified immunity

Barnes v. Harling

368 F. Supp. 3d 573 · District Court, W.D. New York · Mar 18, 2019

"Qualified immunity insulates public officials from claims for damages where their conduct does not violate 'clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.' " Defore … Accordingly, the Court finds the relevant law as to the SHU lighting conditions was not clearly established at the time of Plaintiff's incarceration at the Monroe County Jail, and Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity

Poole v. Bishop

District Court, D. Maryland · Sep 30, 2019

Qualified Immunity Defendants also argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity from all of Poole’s claims.20 The doctrine of qualified immunity shields government officials … [qualified immunity] is effectively lost if a case is erroneously permitted to go to trial.” 20 Defendants do not argue why they are entitled to qualified immunity on a claim- by-claim basis.