Case law

Ansley v. Heinrich

925 F.2d 1339 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Mar 11, 1991

The affirmative defense of qualified immunity protects public officials, acting within the scope of their discretionary authority and under clearly established law, from insubstantial lawsuits. Butz v. … In Harlow , the Supreme Court stated that the immunity defense should fail if the law governing the official’s actions has been clearly established.

Johnson v. Morris

453 N.W.2d 31 · Supreme Court of Minnesota · Mar 23, 1990

Qualified immunity is available if the officer did “not violate clearly established stat *39 utory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. … Simply stated, if the law the officer allegedly violated was “clearly established” there would exist no immunity, but, if not, qualified immunity would be available. Harlow, 457 U.S. at 819 , 102 S.Ct. at 2738-39 .

Henson v. Foster

District Court, W.D. Arkansas · Feb 10, 2023

Qualified immunity “shields [a] government official from liability in a section 1983 action unless the official’s conduct violates a clearly established right of which a reasonable person would have known.” Brown v. … of whether the detainees rights were clearly established). 2.

Christopher H. Harris v. Asa Hutchinson, Individually and in His Official Capacity as Governor of the State of Arkansas; And Patrick Fisk, Individually and in His Official Capacity

591 S.W.3d 778 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jan 9, 2020

The General Assembly clearly intended to subject the State to liability under the AWBA. Ark. Code Ann. § 21-1-602(5); Smith v. … , the legislature has established the Arkansas State Claims Commission so that claims against the State may be addressed while preserving the State’s sovereign immunity.

Barnthouse v. City of Edmond

74 O.B.A.J. 1297 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Apr 22, 2003

Material issues of fact for a jury exist as to: (1) whether Cochran violated Appellants' clearly established constitutional rights for purposes of his individual qualified immunity defense to the § 1988 claim; and (@)whether … Whether Cochran is entitled to qualified immunity where his conduct violated Appellants' right to due process (a constitutional right), and that right was violated by Cochran when it was clearly established at the time of

Oliver v. Dep't of Pub. Safety & Corr. Servs.

350 F. Supp. 3d 340 · District Court, D. Maryland · Nov 28, 2018

Qualified immunity shields *352 government officials from liability for civil damages as long as "their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have … Because the plaintiff's right not to *353 be listed in the MSOR was not clearly established at the time the alleged violation occurred, qualified immunity insulates the individual defendants in this case from liability under

McClelland v. Katy Indep Sch Dist

63 F.4th 996 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Mar 31, 2023

Whether McClelland’s free speech rights were clearly established “A Government official’s conduct violates clearly established law when, at the time of the challenged conduct, ‘[t]he contours … established so as to defeat qualified immunity for Hull. 2.

Depaul Industries v. Benjamin Miller

14 F.4th 1021 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Sep 28, 2021

MILLER DISCUSSION Miller is entitled to qualified immunity unless he violated a clearly established statutory or constitutional right. … CONCLUSION Miller is entitled to qualified immunity if his conduct did not violate DePaul’s clearly established statutory or constitutional rights.

Ryan Lash v. Jennifer Lemke

786 F.3d 1 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · May 15, 2015

A Because the officers’ conduct here did not violate any clearly established law, they have qualified immunity against Lash’s Fourth Amendment claim. 2 Qualified immunity exists to protect officers “from undue interference … An official who asserts a qualified immunity defense can only be held liable if the plaintiff suing him establishes that the official “violated a constitutional right” that “was clearly established” at the time.

Romer v. Morgenthau

119 F. Supp. 2d 346 · District Court, S.D. New York · Sep 26, 2000

absolute or qualified immunity. … See discussion supra; Harlow, 457 U.S. at 818 , 102 S.Ct. 2727 (allowing qualified immunity if defendant “does not violate clearly established” rights of which “a reasonable person would have known”).

Charles Jackson v. Billy D. Stair, III

944 F.3d 704 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Dec 3, 2019

If so, qualified immunity does not shield the officer from liability if the constitutional right was clearly established at the time of the violation. … Officer Stair argues that qualified immunity shields him from any potential liability related to the second tasing because Jackson did not have a clearly established right to excessive force at the time.

Denise Coley v. Lucas County, Ohio

799 F.3d 530 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 21, 2015

Gray’s argument that his actions did not violate clearly established law thus also fails. 2. … At the time of the events alleged in the complaint, those rights were clearly established.

Rogers v. Jarrett

63 F.4th 971 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Mar 30, 2023

conduct is clearly established.”22 It just isn’t enough to identify a right as “a broad general proposition.”23 The district court did not address qualified immunity’s second step. … Griffin27 supports that Jarrett and Bridges violated clearly established law.

Kedra v. Schroeter

161 F. Supp. 3d 359 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 18, 2016

Under these circumstances, the vio-lative nature of Defendant’s alleged conduct has not been clearly established, and so Defendant is necessarily entitled to qualified immunity. IV. … at issue was clearly established.

Calhoun v. Buck

371 F. Supp. 3d 1008 · District Court, D. Utah · Apr 5, 2019

Qualified Immunity Trooper Buck asserts he is entitled to qualified immunity on Plaintiff's claims. … established right and therefore qualified immunity applies. a.

Eastland County Cooperative Dispatch v. Poyner

64 S.W.3d 182 · Texas Court of Appeals, 11th District (Eastland) · Jan 10, 2002

The motions for summary judgment implicated the doctrines of sovereign immunity, official immunity, and qualified immunity. … Was that general prohibition the source for clearly established law which the officers violated in this case?

Estate of Clemente Najera Aguirre v. County of Riverside

131 F.4th 702 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Mar 11, 2025

We have held “that the ‘clearly established’ prong of the qualified immunity analysis is a matter of law to be decided by a judge.” Reese v. Cnty. of Sacramento, 888 F.3d 1030, 1037 (9th Cir. 2018) (quoting Morales v. … Clearly Established Law Assessing qualified immunity after a jury verdict turns on the second, “clearly established” prong, which requires deference to the jury’s view of the facts. See A.D., 712 F.3d at 456.

Estate of Lockett ex rel. Lockett v. Fallin

841 F.3d 1098 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Nov 15, 2016

Qualified Immunity All Appellees claim that they are entitled to qualified immunity. Qualified immunity protects government, officials from suit, not just from liability. Mitchell v. … Thus, Appellees have violated no clearly established law. D. Quasi-Judicial Immunity Dr.

Randy Cole v. Michael Hunter

905 F.3d 334 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Sep 25, 2018

of the unlawfulness of his or her conduct. 16 The officer is entitled to qualified immunity if there is no violation, or if the conduct did not violate law clearly established at the time. 17 12 136 S. … established law. 21 We will not revisit the first part of the qualified immunity inquiry in connection with any of the Coles’ claims, nor the question of clearly established law as regards the Coles’ Fourteenth Amendment

Sawyer v. Coleman

245 Ga. App. 37 · Court of Appeals of Georgia · Jul 12, 2000

This requirement that plaintiff show a clearly established right is a strenuous one: For the law to be clearly established to the point that qualified immunity does not apply, the law must have earlier been developed in such … In establishing that a right is clearly established so as to overcome a claim of qualified immunity, a plaintiff must rely upon specific, supporting case law: General propositions have little to do with the concept of qualified