Case law

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.

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.

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.

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).

HARAPAT v. Vigil

676 F. Supp. 2d 1250 · District Court, D. New Mexico · Oct 13, 2009

Clearly Established Law. … Qualified immunity shields state officials from liability “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v.

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 .

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

Rosen v. City of New York

667 F. Supp. 2d 355 · District Court, S.D. New York · Oct 28, 2009

The doctrine of qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions from liability for civil damages under federal claims insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … A government official is entitled to qualified immunity when “(1) Plaintiff fails to allege a violation of a federal right; (2) the right alleged was not clearly established at the time of the alleged violation; or (3) the

Fred Halcomb, Jr. v. Tamarra Ravenell

992 F.3d 316 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Mar 30, 2021

Determining whether an official is entitled to qualified immunity “typically involves two inquiries: (1) whether the plaintiff has established the violation of a constitutional right, and (2) whether that right was clearly … Here, we conclude that even assuming a violation of Appellee’s due process rights, Appellant is entitled to qualified immunity because the right at issue was not clearly established at the time of the alleged violation.

Caretolive v. Von Eschenbach

525 F. Supp. 2d 952 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Dec 4, 2007

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity protects government officials performing discretionary functions from suit for damages as long as their conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights … Instead, to establish that a right was clearly established in a qualified immunity analysis, this Court must look first to the decisions of the United States Supreme Court and then to the case law of this circuit.

McKinsey v. Vernon

130 Idaho 354 · Idaho Supreme Court · Jun 5, 1997

The three-part inquiry to determine if a public official asserting qualified immunity is entitled to the defense is: 1. Was there a clearly established law? 2. … Did the conduct of the party asserting qualified immunity violate a clearly established right of the party claiming the violation? 3. Was the conduct of the party asserting qualified immunity reasonable? Farnworth v.

Novitsky v. City of Aurora

491 F.3d 1244 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jul 5, 2007

Novitsky’s first claim, the district court concluded the officers were entitled to qualified immunity because, on June 9, 2001, they did not violate clearly established law by removing M r. … W e therefore turn to the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis, asking whether Officer W ortham violated clearly established law. 2.

Megan Green v. Cliff Sommer

52 F.4th 734 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Nov 1, 2022

issue,’ involve a clearly established violation of federal law.” … On an appeal from a denial of qualified immunity at the motion to dismiss phase, “this court is constrained to the legal question whether the particular facts support the [plaintiff’s] claim that [defendants] violated clearly

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

Vest v. Easley

145 N.C. App. 70 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Jul 17, 2001

They may, however, defend by raising the defense of qualified immunity. Id. … Qualified immunity protects public officials from personal liability for performing official, discretionary functions if the conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable

Sundquist v. Nebraska

122 F. Supp. 3d 876 · District Court, D. Nebraska · Aug 10, 2015

Schuldt and Vierk contend that, in 2013, it was not clearly established that this violated Sundquist’s rights, and therefore, they argue, they are entitled to qualified immunity. … The doctrine of 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