Case law

Klindtworth v. Burkett

477 N.W.2d 176 · North Dakota Supreme Court · Nov 12, 1991

action is a violation) violates a clearly established right. … When a court is faced with a motion for summary judgment based on qualified immunity, the court must first determine whether or not the alleged conduct of the defendant was violative of "clearly established" law.

Montgomery v. Lore

District Court, D. Colorado · Aug 17, 2022

Defendant argues for dismissal of all claims on the grounds of qualified immunity, as Plaintiff fails to cite to clearly established law and cannot show that Defendant did not have reasonable suspicion. … CONCLUSION Defendant should be entitled to qualified immunity because he possessed reasonable suspicion, and Plaintiff has failed to cite to clearly established law.

Vega v. Semple

963 F.3d 259 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jun 29, 2020

Accordingly, the District Court denied Defendants qualified immunity for conduct alleged to have occurred after Helling, decided on June 18, 1993, finding the right to be clearly established as of that date. … In denying defendants qualified immunity on this claim, we first noted that a prisoner’s right to a meaningful opportunity for physical exercise had been clearly established since 1985. Id. at *6 (citing Anderson v.

Savard v. State of RI

338 F.3d 23 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Feb 11, 2003

Qualified immunity is available to the defendants if, at the time of the alleged violations, the law was not clearly established. See id. … The law was clearly established for purposes of qualified immunity. 3.

Robert Bardo v. K. Clendenin

474 F. App'x 673 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jul 23, 2012

The district court properly held that defendant prison officials were entitled to qualified immunity because Bardo did not have a clearly established First Amendment right to retain the ad depicting side-view nudity. … Pelzer, 536 U.S. 730, 739 (2002) (“For a constitutional right to be clearly established, its contours must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that right.”

Roberts v. Swain

126 N.C. App. 712 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Jul 15, 1997

Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, “government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … However, qualified immunity could operate to shield Swain and McCracken from plaintiff’s damages suit “if ‘a reasonable officer could have believed’ ” plaintiff’s arrest “ ‘to be lawful, in light of clearly established law

Yount v. Millington

117 N.M. 95 · New Mexico Court of Appeals · Nov 22, 1993

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY Government officials are entitled to summary judgment on the ground of qualified immunity, provided that their actions are objectively reasonable in the light of clearly established law. Harlow v. … We first note that the allegedly violated law that must be clearly established in the context of a qualified-immunity analysis is federal law, not state law. Estate of Himelstein v.

Turner v. Thomas

313 F. Supp. 3d 704 · District Court, W.D. Virginia · May 29, 2018

Because I find this duty is not "clearly established," his claims are barred by qualified immunity. … Qualified Immunity The individual Defendants argue they are entitled to qualified immunity, a doctrine that protects government officials from damages lawsuits when their actions did not violate clearly established law.

Morales Mancia v. Elam

District Court, W.D. Virginia · Sep 13, 2021

The doctrine of qualified immunity shields government officials from civil damages liability “so long as their conduct ‘does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a … To determine whether the law was clearly established for qualified immunity purposes, a court “‘ordinarily need not look beyond the decisions of the Supreme Court, [the] court of appeals, and the highest court of the state

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.

Leslie Atkinson v. Brent Godfrey

100 F.4th 498 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · May 2, 2024

Under that prong, an officer is entitled to qualified immunity if, at the time of the challenged conduct, the law did not clearly establish that the officer’s conduct was unconstitutional. … Instead, under prong two of the qualified immunity analysis, we held that the constitutional rights Atkinson claimed Godfrey violated were not clearly established at the time of Godfrey’s conduct.

Neimes v. Kien Chung Ta

985 S.W.2d 132 · Texas Court of Appeals, 4th District (San Antonio) · Jan 11, 1999

Woo’s affirmative defense of qualified immunity because the constitutional rights that Ta and Fisher have asserted are not clearly established. … Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, as long as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would be aware, government officials performing discretionary

Bates v. Rowe

District Court, N.D. Texas · Jun 27, 2023

After the issue of qualified immunity is ' Defendants have each appeared in this case and asserted the affirmative defense of qualified immunity. (See Dkt. Nos. 32, 33, 34.) … .”); see also Backe, 691 F.3d at 648 (explaining that “this court has established a careful procedure under which a district court may defer its qualified immunity ruling if further factual development is necessary to

Mendoza v. City of West Covina

206 Cal. App. 4th 702 · California Court of Appeal · May 8, 2012

The qualified immunity rule shields public officers from section 1983 actions unless the officer has violated a clearly established constitutional right. … The Saucier court established a two-step procedure for determining whether a defendant’s conduct was entitled to qualified immunity.

Finch v. Wemlinger

361 N.W.2d 865 · Supreme Court of Minnesota · Feb 8, 1985

Because the right was not “clearly established” on that date; and since the federal doctrine of qualified immunity was applicable, see Finch v. Wemlinger, 310 N.W.2d 66, 70 (1981); under Harlow v. … Examination of these cases demonstrates clearly that Harlow fundamentally changed the prior law by abolishing the subjective element of the qualified immunity test. See also, Davis v.

Barnett v. Mount Vernon Police Department

523 F. App'x 811 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · May 3, 2013

The defense will succeed only where entitlement to qualified immunity can be established “based [solely] on facts appearing on the face of the complaint.” McKenna v. Wright, 386 F.3d 432, 436 (2d Cir. 2004). … The existence of either actual probable cause or arguable probable cause establishes qualified immunity from a false arrest claim, see Savino, 331 F.3d at 76; therefore, the sole issue on this appeal is whether the defendants

Leibel v. City of Buckeye

382 F. Supp. 3d 909 · District Court, D. Arizona · Apr 9, 2019

As Officer Grossman correctly states, denial of qualified immunity is only appropriate where an official's conduct violates "clearly established constitutional rights of which a reasonable officer would be aware 'in light … In retrospect, it would have been preferable to provide a comparable level of analysis concerning the clearly-established prong of the qualified-immunity test (which the Court has attempted to supply below).

Parent Father Doe and Parent Mother Doe, Individually on their own behalf and as Parents and Next Friend for Minor Doe v. Western Dubuque Community School District, Jessica Pape, Dan Butler, and Scott Firzlaff, in their Official Capacities

Supreme Court of Iowa · May 9, 2025

Third, the plaintiff must plead “that the law was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation.” Id. … Do the people have a clearly established right, privilege, or immunity to be free from being rear-ended? T-boned? Side-swiped?

Huffmier v. Hamilton

30 Kan. App. 2d 1163 · Court of Appeals of Kansas · Oct 25, 2002

established law.” … Second, was the constitutional right clearly established? See McCormick, 272 Kan. at 642 .

Pinkins v. City of Racine

District Court, E.D. Wisconsin · Mar 30, 2022

The use of such force establishes a constitutional violation, and if the right violated was clearly established at the time of the officer’s actions, then qualified immunity does not attach. … If one view of the disputed facts could lead a jury to conclude that an officer violated a clearly established constitutional right, the officer may not seek qualified immunity based on an alternative, more advantageous