Case law

Vanessa Cole v. Dennis Hutchins

959 F.3d 1127 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · May 28, 2020

“Our jurisdiction to consider an appeal of an order denying summary judgment based on qualified immunity is limited to the purely legal issue of whether the facts . . . alleged support a claim of violation of clearly established … The law was clearly established in two respects relevant here.

Murphy v. Middlesex Cnty.

361 F. Supp. 3d 376 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Jan 17, 2019

could clearly establish a right for purposes of qualified immunity." … Thus, to establish qualified immunity, the MCPO Defendants are expected to address these cases and any similar cases in showing whether the rights implicated by this case may be considered clearly established.

Michael Matzell v. Anthony J. Annucci

64 F.4th 425 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Apr 4, 2023

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity shields government officials from liability for money damages for violation of a right under federal law if "their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … Qualified immunity bars a plaintiff's claim unless (1) the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that right was clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct. Francis v.

Douglas Fuqua v. Brett Turner

996 F.3d 1140 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · May 6, 2021

The District Court agreed that Collier was entitled to qualified immunity with respect to the federal claims because, assuming Collier violated Fuqua’s Fourth Amendment rights, the violation was not clearly established … 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 person would have

Cronin v. Peterson

288 F. Supp. 3d 970 · District Court, D. Nebraska · Jan 24, 2018

"Clearly established" for purposes of qualified immunity "should not be defined at a high level of generality ... [but] must be particularized to the facts of the case." Lyons v. … violated a clearly established constitutional right."

Scott Peatross v. City of Memphis

818 F.3d 233 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Mar 29, 2016

violated clearly established law.”) … Cupp, 430 F.3d 766, 774 (6th Cir. 2005), the right is clearly established.

Orozco v. Day

281 Mont. 341 · Montana Supreme Court · Mar 10, 1997

Qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions from civil damages "'insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or … As discussed above, our threshold inquiry in addressing qualified immunity is whether the due process right arising from Orozco's liberty interest in good time credits was clearly established

Root v. Comstock

Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jan 14, 2026

Qualified immunity “[Q]ualified immunity shields officials from civil liability so long as their conduct ‘does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would … Root’s out-of-circuit cases do not provide clearly established law. Most of them are district court and unpublished decisions that cannot qualify as clearly established law. See Surat v.

Tesla Inc. v. Louisiana Automobile Dealers Association

District Court, E.D. Louisiana · Mar 7, 2025

The Impact of Asserting Qualified Immunity on Discovery When dismissal is sought on the grounds of qualified immunity, however, a stay of discovery is virtually routine because a defendant pleading qualified … immunity operates to stay discovery only as to the defendants asserting qualified immunity, not to co-defendants or on other claims not subject to qualified immunity.

McCowan v. Morales

945 F.3d 1276 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Dec 27, 2019

A court can consider the two qualified-immunity inquiries—whether the plaintiff has established a statutory or constitutional violation and whether that violation was clearly established—in any order. See Pearson v. … Because this claim adequately alleges a clearly established Fourteenth Amendment violation, the district court correctly denied Moralez qualified immunity from it. 1.

McIntire v. State

419 N.W.2d 799 · Court of Appeals of Minnesota · Feb 23, 1988

In Harlow the Supreme Court further explained the applicable test: If the law was clearly established, the immunity defense ordinarily should fail, since a reasonably competent public official should know the law governing … Whether the law was clearly established is a threshold question; if the trial court finds the law was not clearly established when the conduct occurred, “the inquiry ceases” and “the official is entitled to summary judgment

GOFAN JUNIOR v. PEREKSTA

District Court, D. New Jersey · Mar 31, 2021

In the familiar qualified immunity analysis, the court asks “(1) whether the officer violated a constitutional right, and (2) whether the right was clearly established, such that ‘it would [have … This though does not end this Court’s qualified immunity analysis.

Williams v. Vannoy

District Court, M.D. Louisiana · Dec 19, 2023

Reinert, Qualified Immunity’s Flawed Foundation, 111 CAL. L. REV. 201 (2023). Restored to its proper place, this clause “unequivocally negate[s] the original interpretive premise for qualified immunity.” See Rogers v. … Plaintiff has also carried his burden to show that the law was clearly established at the time Lt. Col. Knight and Capt.

Petcu v. State

121 Wash. App. 36 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Mar 30, 2004

Finally, he argued that Smith was not entitled to qualified immunity because she violated Petcu’s clearly established right to family unity. … Once a defendant asserts a defense of qualified immunity, the plaintiff must show that a clearly established constitutional right exists. Robinson, 119 Wn.2d at 65-66 .

Ex parte State Board of Education

219 So. 3d 604 · Supreme Court of Alabama · Sep 9, 2016

Richardson’s actions violated the respondents’ clearly established rights, rendering qualified immunity inappropriate. *616 In analyzing whether a right is clearly established, we must consider whether preexisting law at … The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit has stated that, within that circuit, “the law can be ‘clearly established’ for qualified immunity purposes only by decisions of the U.S.

Pauley v. Anchorage School District

31 P.3d 1284 · Alaska Supreme Court · Oct 5, 2001

Where it is alleged that an official has violated a statute, qualified immunity may be overcome "if the officials have violated 'clearly established' law, unless the officials can prove that they non-negligently were not … In claims of excessive force brought against a police officer qualified immunity will be sustained if "a reasonable official could have believed the challenged conduct was lawful in light of clearly established law and the

Henry v. Purnell

428 F. Supp. 2d 393 · District Court, D. Maryland · Apr 21, 2006

Second, if the answer to the first question is yes, they are to further inquire “whether the right was clearly established.” Id. … Purnell does not contend that he is entitled to qualified immunity on the ground that it is not clearly established that shooting someone with a handgun in the belief that a Taser is being fired constitutes a Fourth Amendment

Harris v. City of Balch Springs

9 F. Supp. 3d 690 · District Court, N.D. Texas · Mar 28, 2014

Conversely, an official’s conduct is not protected by qualified immunity if, in light of clearly established pre-existing law, it was apparent the conduct, when undertaken, would be a violation of the right at issue. … If “the pleadings on their face show an unreasonable violation of a clearly established constitutional right,” assertion of a qualified immunity defense is insufficient to sustain a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss.

Demetrius Hill v. C.O. Crum

727 F.3d 312 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Aug 14, 2013

We do possess jurisdiction to consider this appeal from the denial of qualified immunity to the extent that Crum claims that his conduct did not violate clearly established law. See Winfield v. … His argument is that he is entitled to qualified immunity because Hill’s claimed constitutional violation was not clearly established at the time of the assault.

Bryant v. Pulaski County Detention Center

330 S.W.3d 461 · Kentucky Supreme Court · Feb 25, 2011

The trial court granted summary judgment based on sovereign immunity to the Detention Center, and to Brian Bishop based on qualified official immunity. … Those facts clearly establish that Bishop was not acting in good faith, either objectively or subjectively.