Case law

McClellan v. Chippewa, County of

District Court, W.D. Michigan · Oct 7, 2022

Sept. 8, 2022) (“A single district court opinion is not enough to pronounce a right is clearly established for purposes of qualified immunity.”) (citing Hall v. Sweet, 666 F. … Greene, 563 U.S. 692, 709 n.7 (2011) (“Many Courts of Appeals . . . decline to consider district court precedent when determining if constitutional rights are clearly established for purposes of qualified immunity.”).

Doe v. Ohio State University

219 F. Supp. 3d 645 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Nov 7, 2016

The Court “review[s] an assertion of qualified immunity to determine only whether the complaint ‘adequately alleges the commission of acts that violated clearly established law.’ ” Back v. … Majarian is entitled to qualified immunity because Doe has stated no specific allegations that Majarian violated clearly established law by failing to disclose key impeachment evidence.

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

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.

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.

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).

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

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

EIVICH v. EAST GREENWICH TOWNSHIP

District Court, D. New Jersey · Aug 12, 2025

Beyond reciting the standard for qualified immunity and reiterating their argument as to why the excessive force should be dismissed, defendants do not expressly argue how or why Robostello is entitled to qualified immunity … Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 231 (2009) (“The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional

Powell v. Cooper

241 Wis. 2d 153 · Wisconsin Supreme Court · Feb 16, 2001

Cooper and Stoudt were not entitled to qualified immunity because Powell's due process claims were grounded on clearly established property and liberty interests. Id. at 19. ¶ 12. … When qualified immunity is raised as an affirmative defense, the plaintiff has the burden of demonstrating by closely analogous case law that the defendant violated a clearly established constitutional right.

Harrison v. Kernan

District Court, N.D. California · Sep 21, 2021

Ct. 26 831 (Jan. 23, 2017) (qualified immunity looks at whether the right was clearly established when the defendant acted). … See e.g., S.B., 864 F.3d at 1015 (qualified 7 immunity looks at whether the right was clearly established when the defendant acted).

Nathan Freidhoff, Individually, Michelle Freidhoff and Todd Freidhoff, Individually and as Parents and Next Friends of Nathan Freidhoff v. Johnston Community School District, Mitch Eagles and Brett Becker

Court of Appeals of Iowa · May 13, 2026

established at the time of the alleged violation.” … established at the time of the alleged violation.”

Messerschmidt v. Millender

565 U.S. 535 · Supreme Court of the United States · Feb 22, 2012

“The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as their con­duct does not violate clearly established statutory or consti­tutional rights of which a reasonable … the legal rules that were ‘clearly established’ at the time it was taken.”

Dickson v. City of Clovis

148 N.M. 831 · New Mexico Court of Appeals · Apr 1, 2010

It granted Defendant Parkin qualified immunity, determining that “there was no apparent violation of a clearly established constitutional right” because it was reasonable for Defendant Parkin to have been uncertain as to … , granted Defendant Parkin qualified immunity, which entitled him to summary judgment as a matter of law.

Thomas v. County of Putnam

262 F. Supp. 2d 241 · District Court, S.D. New York · May 7, 2003

Qualified Immunity Even assuming probable cause was not established, Deputies Langley and Nalbone have a valid defense of qualified immunity. … Absolute Immunity Prosecutors facing individual capacity liability can claim absolute or qualified immunity.

Vania Minor, Individually and as Mother, Natural Guardian and Next Best Friend of D.A. v. State of Iowa, Becky Grabe, Individually and Cleo Hester, Individually

819 N.W.2d 383 · Supreme Court of Iowa · Jun 15, 2012

Accordingly, Grabe is entitled to qualified immunity as a matter of law for these alleged actions. 2. Whether Hester violated the clearly established constitutional rights of Minor or D.A. … Hester argues, however, that he is entitled to qualified immunity because Minor and D.A. failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact as to whether he violated D.A.’s clearly established constitutional right under

Merrilee Berge, V. Kitsap County

Court of Appeals of Washington · Jul 11, 2023

RECREATIONAL IMMUNITY 1. … See also Lockner, 190 Wn.2d at 532 (“To qualify for immunity under RCW 4.24.210, the landowner must establish that the land at issue was (1) open 5 No. 56865-9-II to

Geronimo Lozano v. State of New Jersey

9 F.4th 239 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Aug 16, 2021

A police officer is entitled to qualified immunity under § 1983 unless the plaintiff shows that the officer violated “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … Rather, we may only “review whether the set of facts identified by the district court is sufficient to establish a violation of a clearly established constitutional right.” Id.