Case law

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

Town of Southwest Ranches v. Kalam

980 So. 2d 1121 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Mar 12, 2008

a clearly established right). … As Kalam’s complaint fails to show that the town officials’ conduct violated his rights in light of clearly established law, the individual defendants are entitled to qualified immunity from suit.

Irish v. State of ME

849 F.3d 521 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Mar 1, 2017

come away understanding that it [wa]s not a clearly established violation of Ms. … Lewis, 648 F.3d 24, 32 (1st Cir. 2011) (qualified immunity protects officers from liability "insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established . . . constitutional rights of which a reasonable

Wilson v. Osborn

District Court, N.D. Ohio · Dec 9, 2022

Qualified Immunity Osborn argues that she is entitled to summary judgment with respect to both of Wilson’s claims on the basis of qualified immunity.13 The qualified immunity … “[A]n arresting [officer] is entitled to qualified immunity if he or she could reasonably (even if erroneously) have believed that the arrest was lawful, in light of clearly established law and the information possessed

Purvis v. Oest

614 F.3d 713 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Aug 2, 2010

In a qualified-immunity setting, the plaintiff bears the burden of showing that the constitutional right alleg- edly violated was clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct. See Landstrom v. Ill. … Oest is therefore entitled to qualified immunity. Despite being aware of the potential conflict of interest, Lunn and Vicini are also entitled to qualified immunity.

Peerman v. Catron

District Court, W.D. Virginia · Nov 13, 2023

Qualified Immunity The Court therefore proceeds under the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis, and considers whether the right in question was “clearly established … qualified immunity.

Boyle v. Patridge

District Court, N.D. Illinois · Feb 21, 2020

“Qualified immunity attaches when an official’s conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” White v. Pauly, --- U.S. ----, 137 S. … Minchuk, 910 F.3d 909, 918 (7th Cir. 2018) (“[A] dispute of fact regarding the circumstances surrounding an officer’s use of force may prevent us from determining whether an individual’s clearly established rights have

MACK v. AVERTEST, LLC

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 28, 2020

Darrah would be entitled to qualified immunity if reasonable officials in her position “could have believed, in light of clearly established law, that their conduct comported with established legal standards.” … Supp. at 335 (“A qualified immunity only protects defendants if it can be shown that they did not violate any clearly established constitutional or statutory rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”

Carrera v. Yepez

6 S.W.3d 654 · Texas Court of Appeals, 8th District (El Paso) · Oct 28, 1999

Since qualified immunity turns on whether a defendant violated a clearly established right, a ‘necessary concomitant’ to that decision is determining ‘whether the plaintiff has asserted a violation of a constitutional right … WERE THE CONSTITUTIONAL STANDARDS CLEARLY ESTABLISHED?

Furlong v. Gardner

1998 Colo. J. C.A.R. 1302 · Supreme Court of Colorado · Mar 23, 1998

any clearly established right. … to support a violation of a clearly established law.”

Brown v. Meda

74 Md. App. 331 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jun 24, 1988

[emphasis added, bracketed material in original] As was clearly stated by the Court in Moore v. … The emphasized portion of that statement is simply another way of saying that, in a case involving complex medical procedures or the exercise of professional skill and judgment, a jury is not qualified to determine whether

Rockford Life Insurance v. Illinois Department of Revenue

482 U.S. 182 · Supreme Court of the United States · Jun 8, 1987

Davis is clearly lacking, and its absence is critical in view of the purposes behind the intergovernmental tax immunity doctrine. … H — < 1 — i A court must proceed carefully when asked to recognize an exemption from state taxation that Congress has not clearly established.

Leo v. Trevino

285 S.W.3d 470 · Texas Court of Appeals, 13th District · Jun 8, 2006

Constitutional Violation The first prong of any analysis of the availability of qualified immunity requires the establishment of the violation of a “clearly established right.” Beck, 204 F.3d at 638. … The School District Employees are entitled to qualified immunity from the Trevinos’ claims, absent a showing of a violation of “clearly established constitutional law.”

Cunningham ex rel Gaines v. Baltimore Cnty.

Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jun 25, 2024

Because the law was not clearly established at the time, qualified immunity is proper. … Alternatively, the Defendants argued that Corporal Ruby was entitled to qualified immunity because he did not violate clearly established law.

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

Dimitris Desyllas v. Daniel Bernstine Roderic Diman John Fowler Rick Roe

351 F.3d 934 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Dec 9, 2003

rights were clearly established. … Accordingly, we need not consider the second part of the qualified immunity analysis — whether the constitutional rights were clearly established. Saucier, 533 U.S. at 201, 121 S.Ct. 2151 .

Sossamon v. Lone Star St Texas

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Mar 17, 2009

As for the individual-capacity claims for damages under the First Amendment, we note that the defendants who Sossamon sued enjoy qualified immunity as government actors.76 Whether Sossamon could establish a violation of the … Pelletier, 516 U.S. 299, 205-06 (1996) (“[T]he qualified immunity defense shield[s] [government agents] from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional

Abell v. Dewey

870 P.2d 363 · Wyoming Supreme Court · Mar 15, 1994

The Court erroneously applied the law of qualified immunity, i.e. the law was not clearly established in 1990 that a state probationary employee had a property interest in continued employment, and Ap-pellee Dewey is therefore … Once a government *368 official asserts qualified immunity, the plaintiff in an action under 42 U.S.C.S. § 1983 bears the initial burden of convincing the court that the constitutional right was clearly established.