Case law

Cline v. State, Division of Child & Family Services

539 Utah Adv. Rep. 33 · Court of Appeals of Utah · Nov 17, 2005

The Spiel-man court held that the section 1983 claims against Hildebrand were barred by qualified immunity because plaintiffs could not show a violation of any clearly established constitutional or statutory right. … Thus, the section 1983 claims against Forsyth are barred by qualified immunity because Cline cannot show a violation of any clearly established constitutional or statutory right. B.

Abbas Khoshdel .M.D., Llyod Aschberger, Terri Pursley, and Jamie Williams v. Charles Goosby

Texas Court of Appeals, 10th District (Waco) · Nov 1, 2012

Government officials performing discretionary functions have qualified immunity from a suit for damages under section 1983 so long as the official’s conduct does not violate clearly established constitutional … the clearly established right.

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.

Heller v. Plave

743 F. Supp. 1553 · District Court, S.D. Florida · Jul 18, 1990

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity insulates government officials from personal liability for actions within their discretionary authority. Harlow v. … Whether an official is entitled to qualified immunity requires two inquiries: (1) whether the law was clearly established at the time of the alleged misconduct; and, (2) whether the alleged misconduct violated that clearly

Betty Jean Triplett v. Washington Dept of Social & Health Services

193 Wash. App. 497 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Apr 21, 2016

The prevailing view is that once the defense of qualified immunity is properly raised, the plaintiff has the burden of showing the defendant violated the plaintiffs clearly established federal right. MARTIN A. … Clearly established law The individual defendants are still qualifiedly immune from liability, even for a constitutional violation, if their conduct was objectively reasonable in light of clearly established law

Stewart v. Beach

701 F.3d 1322 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Dec 18, 2012

Judge Robinson then turned to qualified immunity. … Furthermore, we harbor some doubt that Judge Belot’s denial of qualified immunity turned solely on whether the law was clearly established.

Christopher Majors v. City of West Des Moines

Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jun 25, 2026

McCrystal, 708 F.3d 997, 1007–08 (8th Cir. 2013) (denying officer qualified immunity after plaintiff established a Franks violation), abrogation on other grounds recognized by Laney v. City of St. … establish probable cause if the allegedly false information were ignored.

Woosley v. City of Paris

591 F. Supp. 2d 913 · District Court, E.D. Kentucky · Dec 4, 2008

clearly established constitutional law. … Plaintiff has failed to establish that Cornett violated any clearly established right which belonged to him on these grounds.

Gaymon v. Borough of Collingdale

150 F. Supp. 3d 457 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 17, 2015

Defendants sought to redefine the focus of the qualified immunity analysis to whether there was a clearly established “First Amendment right to record” police, officers performing their official duties at the time of the … To overcome the defense of qualified immunity, Plaintiffs must allege facts showing that the Defendant officers’ conduct (1) “violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was ‘clearly established’

Noble v. City of Camden

112 F. Supp. 3d 208 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Jun 29, 2015

Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity “if a reasonable officer could have believed that probable cause existed” to arrest Plaintiff “in light of clearly established law and the information the [arresting] '’ officers … of qualified immunity. .

Sterling Hotels, LLC v. Scott McKay

71 F.4th 463 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 22, 2023

To overcome McKay’s assertion of qualified immunity at this stage, Sterling need only plausibly allege that McKay violated its clearly established constitutional rights. … McKay’s potential individual liability for a regulatory takings claim was not clearly established when he sealed the elevators. That means McKay is entitled to qualified immunity on this claim.

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.

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.

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.

Kevin M. Leckelt v. Board of Commissioners of Hospital District No. 1

909 F.2d 820 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Aug 28, 1990

Thus, the district court was not clearly erroneous in finding that Leekelt failed to establish that he was discriminated against solely because of a perception that he was infected with HIV. … We are unable to conclude that the district court was clearly erroneous in finding that Leckelt did not establish pretext. C.

Martin v. Curry

13 Neb. Ct. App. 171 · Nebraska Court of Appeals · Dec 7, 2004

, had qualified immunity. … “Whether an official may prevail in his or her qualified immunity defense depends upon the ‘ “objective reasonableness of [his or her] conduct as measured by reference to clearly established law.” ’ ” Id.

Ed Rich v. Larry C. Dollar

841 F.2d 1558 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Apr 15, 1988

damages action by qualified immunity pursuant to Harlow v. … However, these factual disputes do not preclude a grant of summary judgment premised on a defendant’s qualified immunity if the legal norms allegedly violated were not clearly established at the time of the challenged actions

Summerville v. City of Forest Park

128 Ohio St. 3d 221 · Ohio Supreme Court · Dec 27, 2010

Chapter 2744 or another provision of the law, including federal qualified immunity. … immunity if their conduct does not violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”