Case law

Lamb v. Holmes

162 S.W.3d 902 · Kentucky Supreme Court · May 19, 2005

establish searches conducted in either described manner would be unreasonable, and therefore the teachers/administrators are entitled to qualified immunity. … Qualified immunity protects state and local officials who carry out executive and administrative functions from personal liability so long as their actions do not violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights

Sabir v. District of Columbia

755 A.2d 449 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jun 22, 2000

Absent violation of “a clearly established right,”a police officer will not be subject to § 1983 liability. Id. at 1015. As the D.C. Circuit articulated the standard in Wardlaw v. … Generally, the review of a deniál of qualified immunity is a question of law — “whether the legal norms allegedly violated by the defendant were clearly established at the time of the challenged actions.” Mitchell v.

Jackie L. Brown, II v. City of Montgomery

233 W. Va. 119 · West Virginia Supreme Court · Feb 20, 2014

Code, 29-12A-1, et seq., is entitled to qualified immunity from personal liability for official acts if the involved conduct did not violate clearly established laws of which a reasonable official would have known. … Code, 29-12A-1, et seq., is entitled to qualified immunity from personal liability for official acts if the involved conduct did not violate clearly established laws of which a reasonable

Haskell Greer v. City of Highland Park, Mich.

884 F.3d 310 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Mar 2, 2018

Page 2 qualified immunity. … DISCUSSION 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

Hughes v. Kisela

862 F.3d 775 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Nov 28, 2016

“In determining whether an officer is entitled to qualified immunity, we consider (1) whether there has been a violation of a constitutional right; and (2) whether that right was clearly established *783 at the time of the … [genuine factual] issues is crucial to a proper determination of the officers’ entitlement to qualified immunity,” and remanded the question whether the right was clearly established at the time of the alleged misconduct,

Janaszak v. State

173 Wash. App. 703 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Jan 7, 2013

law. 37 A claim of qualified immunity to a § 1983 action presents two issues: (1) do the facts make out a violation of a constitutional right and (2) was the right at issue “clearly established” at the time of the defendant … ’s alleged misconduct. 38 Qualified immunity applies unless the defendant’s conduct violated a clearly established right. 39 Both issues present “ ‘essentially legal question [s]’ ” for the court to decide. 40 The court may

Priester v. City of Riviera Beach

208 F.3d 919 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Apr 4, 2000

Judgment as a Matter of Law—Qualified Immunity 1. … Qualified immunity protects government officials performing discretionary functions "from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which

Ricciuti v. Gyzenis

834 F.3d 162 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Aug 24, 2016

The individual defendants also argued that they were entitled to qualified immunity because their conduct was not prohibited by clearly established law at the time of Ricciuti’s termination. … Town of Wolcott, 599 F.3d 129 (2d Cir. 2010), that “even where the law is ‘clearly established’ and the scope of an official’s permissible conduct is ‘clearly defined,’ the qualified immunity defense also protects an official

Jamie Peterson v. David Heymes

931 F.3d 546 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 25, 2019

Qualified immunity protects an official from liability if the official’s conduct does not violate “clearly established” statutory or constitutional rights that a reasonable person would have known were in existence. … Peterson fails to plead clearly established constitutional violations with respect to each federal claim.

Everson v. Leis

556 F.3d 484 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Feb 20, 2009

, and (2) whether that right was clearly established.” … But under § 1983, “an arresting agent is entitled to qualified immunity if he or she could reasonably (even if erroneously) have believed that the arrest was lawful, in light of clearly established law and the information

Kemp v. Liebel

229 F. Supp. 3d 828 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Jan 20, 2017

To survive summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds, therefore, Plaintiffs must establish that the right they claim was clearly established in this judicial circuit. Jacobs, 215 F.3d at 767. … Thus we hold that Plaintiffs have failed to meet the “clearly established” standard sufficient to defeat Mr. Liebel’s qualified immunity defense to their claims.

Doyle v. Lehi City

723 Utah Adv. Rep. 7 · Court of Appeals of Utah · Dec 6, 2012

“Qualified immunity shields [government] officials from money damages unless a plaintiff pleads facts showing (1) that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was ‘clearly established … Accordingly, we address only the “clearly established” prong of the qualified immunity test and need not decide whether Lehi City officials violated the right alleged by Doyle.3 ¶23 “A Government official’s conduct violates

Denise Hughes v. Monique Locure

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jan 29, 2026

Though we typically re- view only final decisions, “the question of whether a complaint states a violation of clearly established law sufficient to overcome a qualified immunity defense does present … The district court also applied the third method in ruling that Moss’s rights were sufficiently clearly established to overcome Locure’s qualified immunity defense.

Term Auto Sales, Inc. v. City of Cleveland

996 F.2d 1217 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 28, 1993

II. 10 Defendants argue on appeal that they are entitled to qualified immunity from plaintiffs' § 1983 claim because Ohio law on the status of federal certification labels was not clearly established at the time of their … See Robinson, 840 F.2d at 351 (explaining that a question must be decided by the highest state court in the state where the case arose in order to be clearly established for purposes of qualified immunity).

Opinion No.

Arkansas Attorney General Reports · May 13, 2004

Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, an individual is immune from suit if he undertook the actions complained of in good faith in the performance of his duties and the acts do not violate any clearly established constitutional … The immunity is "qualified" because it does not apply where the activity is in violation of clearly established law that a reasonable person would have known. Id. ; Robinson v.

Nevarez v. Coleman

District Court, E.D. Louisiana · Jan 24, 2023

The qualified-immunity defense to such claims shields government officials who perform discretionary functions from suit and liability under section 1983, “unless their conduct violates clearly established statutory … Thus, an “officer will be entitled to qualified immunity if no constitutional violation occurred or if the conduct ‘did not violate law clearly established at the time.’” Davis v.

Gardner v. Rogers

224 Ga. App. 165 · Court of Appeals of Georgia · Dec 20, 1996

“[T]he test for determining whether a defendant is protected from suit by the doctrine of qualified immunity is the objective reasonableness of the defendant’s conduct as measured by reference to clearly established law. … On a motion for summary judgment, if the applicable law was clearly established at the time the defendant acted, the immunity defense ordinarily should fail, since a reasonably competent public official should know the law

Fleming v. City of Bridgeport

92 Conn. App. 400 · Connecticut Appellate Court · Nov 29, 2005

Therefore, in reviewing . . . claims of qualified immunity we are bound by federal precedent, and may not expand or contract the contours of the immunity available to government officials.” … “Qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which

Stephenson v. Doe

332 F.3d 68 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jun 13, 2003

The court later emphasized that this law was clearly established for purposes of qualified immunity. … Yet under the same “clearly established law,” the jury nevertheless found that Dingier was also entitled to qualified immunity.

Ritchie v. Turner

559 S.W.3d 822 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Nov 1, 2018

Recognizing that these actions were clearly discretionary in nature, we held the kindergarten teacher in Turner was entitled to qualified official immunity. Id. at 878 . In Patton v. … As to the objective reasonableness test, Doe has not met her burden to show a violation of a constitutional, statutory, or other clearly established right.