Case law

Shoemaker v. Smith

353 Md. 143 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Mar 10, 1999

'abstract issu[e] of law’ relating to qualified immunity ... … —typically, the issue whether the federal right allegedly infringed was 'clearly established. ..

Attocknie Ex Rel. M.P. v. Smith

798 F.3d 1252 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Aug 24, 2015

Cherry’s entry of Aaron’s home was clearly contrary to well-established law. He is not entitled to qualified immunity on the claim of unlawful entry. … It then summarizes his view of the law of qualified immunity but concludes that “[t]he second stage of qualified immunity analysis, whether a right was ‘clearly established’ need not even be performed, as Defendant Smith

Henes v. Morrissey

194 Wis. 2d 338 · Wisconsin Supreme Court · Jun 27, 1995

The relevant inquiry in a qualified immunity case is: [ W]hether a reasonable state official could have believed his or her act was constitutional "in light of clearly established law and the information [he or she] possessed … The standard of objective legal reasonableness used in determining qualified immunity requires the court to focus on the degree to which clearly established case law gives guidance to officials *347 faced with a particular

Scott v. Britton

16 S.W.3d 173 · Texas Court of Appeals, 1st District (Houston) · Apr 13, 2000

The doctrine of qualified immunity shields an official performing discretionary functions from liability for civil damages under section 1983, provided the official’s conduct does not violate clearly established constitutional … After a governmental official asserts the affirmative defense of qualified immunity, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to show that the defendant’s conduct violated clearly established statutory or constitutional rights

James Rieves v. Town of Smyrna, Tenn.

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · May 15, 2020

Qualified immunity protects government officials from civil suits for damages, so long as their conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known … On a general level, “[i]t is clearly established that an arrest without probable cause violates the Fourth Amendment.” Crockett v.

Henke v. Superior Court

161 Ariz. 96 · Court of Appeals of Arizona · May 10, 1989

under the defendant’s version of the facts the defendant’s conduct violated clearly established law, whether the law clearly proscribed the actions the defendant claims he took. 472 U.S. at 528 , 105 S.Ct. at 2816 , 86 L.Ed … of qualified immunity.

Primus

District Court, D. South Carolina · Feb 17, 2026

Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant in her individual capacity is further barred by qualified immunity as Plaintiff has not stated a constitutional violation. Harlow v. … Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982) (noting that qualified immunity protects government officials performing discretionary functions from civil damage suits as long as the conduct in question does not “violate clearly

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.

Lubcke v. Boise City/Ada County Housing Authority

124 Idaho 450 · Idaho Supreme Court · Sep 9, 1993

Under Harlow , Worrell is entitled to qualified immunity only if she did not violate clearly established constitutional law. … Thus, Worrell should be immune from suit *465 if: a) it was not clearly established law in 1986 that a public employee may not be terminated for her exercise of her First Amendment rights, and b) it was not clearly established

Perea v. Baca

817 F.3d 1198 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Apr 4, 2016

Baca and Jaramillo timely appealed the denial of qualified immunity. … not violate clearly established law.

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.

Joshua Paul English v. Officer Jonathan Fowler

75 F.4th 1151 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jul 27, 2023

They argued that they are entitled to qualified immunity from the claim of ex- cessive force. … that violated clearly established law.”

Carter v. Beebe

Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jun 22, 2026

This argument may have merit on the first step of qualified immunity analysis—constitutional violation, but not the second—clearly established law. Mr. … that Chief Beebe violated clearly established constitutional law, Chief Beebe is entitled to qualified immunity on Mr.

Feigin v. Digital Interactive Associates, Inc.

1999 Colo. J. C.A.R. 683 · Colorado Court of Appeals · Feb 4, 1999

Qualified Immunity The commissioner contends that the trial court erred in denying his summary judgment motion requesting a finding that he was immune from suit under the doctrine of qualified immunity. We agree. … Whether a right is clearly established is a question of law, and, in reviewing a qualified immunity determination, we must use our full knowledge of all relevant precedents. Freedom from Religion Foundation, Inc. v.

Estate of Derek Williams, Jr. v. Jeffrey Cline

902 F.3d 643 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Aug 31, 2018

Substantive qualified immunity analysis encompasses two distinct questions: (1) whether defendants violated a constitutional right; and (2) whether that "right was 'clearly established' at the time of the challenged conduct … qualified immunity."

Anthony Gibson v. Jeffrey Kilpatrick

773 F.3d 661 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Dec 11, 2014

was clearly established. … Qualified Immunity A.

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”).