Case law

Walker v. Corizon Health

947 F.3d 1244 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jan 14, 2020

This court may choose to address either of the two qualified-immunity requirements first because, if “the plaintiff fails to establish either prong of the two-pronged qualified immunity standard, the defendant prevails on … immunity, the complaint must allege specific facts showing each defendant violated the defendant’s clearly established constitutional rights).

Eilenfeldt ex rel. J.M. v. United C.U.S.D. 304 Board of Education

169 F. Supp. 3d 867 · District Court, C.D. Illinois · Mar 14, 2016

Qualified Immunity The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials from civil liability for their actions in the course of their duties “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … However, once a claim of qualified immunity has been raised, a plaintiff also bears the burden of demonstrating the violation of a clearly established constitutional right of which a reasonable person would have known.

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.

Petzak v. Nevada Ex Rel. Department of Corrections

579 F. Supp. 2d 1330 · District Court, D. Nevada · Sep 23, 2008

Dobel’s motion (# 18) for summary judgment raises only the issue of qualified immunity. A. Qualified Immunity and Money Damages Qualified immunity is a valid defense for a public official in an action for damages. … right in question was clearly established in the specific context of the case.

Jeffrey Queen v. City of Bowling Green

956 F.3d 893 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 22, 2020

“Clearly established” means that the “factual context of the occurrence must not exemplify a ‘legally uncertain environment’ in which qualified official immunity is appropriate.” Id. … Kentucky’s “clearly established” requirement tracks the same standards used to determine if a statutory or constitutional right is “clearly established” for purposes of determining whether an officer has federal qualified

United States v. Arnott

758 F.3d 40 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Jul 2, 2014

DISCUSSION When reviewing the district court's disposition of a motion to suppress, we accept the court's findings of fact unless they are clearly erroneous. See United States v.

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

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.

Greiner v. City of Champlin

816 F. Supp. 528 · District Court, D. Minnesota · Mar 9, 1993

Moreover, plaintiffs argue that because a reasonable officer would have known that the orders to leave the party violated clearly established constitutional rights, qualified immunity is not available. … Defendants argue that none of the arrests violated plaintiffs’ clearly established constitutional rights and therefore qualified immunity applies.

Noyes v. Moccia, et al.

District Court, D. New Hampshire · Jun 24, 1999

Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, "government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established … would violate plaintiff's clearly established constitutional rights.

Brenden v. Castro

District Court, N.D. New York · Sep 26, 2025

Therefore, Castro is entitled to qualified immunity because it was not clearly established that individual defendants could be liable on a takings claim. See Novak v. … Castro is also not entitled to qualified immunity because it is clearly established that a false claim of lawful authority can invalidate consent. See id; Amos v.

Durso v. Taylor

624 A.2d 449 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jan 29, 1993

“A plaintiff who seeks damages for violation of constitutional or statutory rights may overcome the defendant official’s qualified immunity only by showing that those rights were clearly established at the time of the conduct … Qualified immunity: objective legal reasonableness. Even if Durso had violated Taylor’s right to due process, we hold that he had qualified immunity for his actions.

Galante v. County of Nassau

186 Misc. 2d 733 · New York Supreme Court · Dec 12, 2000

if either (1) their conduct did not violate clearly established rights of which a reasonable person would have known, or (2) it was objectively reasonable to believe that [their] acts did not violate these clearly established … [their] acts [do] not violate these clearly established rights.’ ” (Tenenbaum, at 596.)

Sinaloa Lake Owners Ass'n v. City of Simi Valley

70 F.3d 1095 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Nov 30, 1995

While the right to due process is “clearly established” by the Due Process Clause, this level of generality was not intended to satisfy the qualified immunity standard. … that the law was clearly established, Doody was nonetheless entitled to qualified immunity because “a reasonable dam safety engineering official, similarly situated, could have believed breaching the dam was lawful.”

State Ex Rel. Wilhoit v. Seay

248 S.W.3d 135 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Mar 24, 2008

Again, both Jones and Walker are public officials entitled to qualified immunity unless their immunity was lost through conduct violating a clearly established statutory or constitutional right of which a reasonable person … Wood, therefore, has failed to allege facts that adequately prove that Jones and Walker lost their qualified immunity by violating a clearly established statutory or constitutional right.

Jim Nahas v. Polk County, Iowa

Supreme Court of Iowa · Jun 9, 2023

The “clearly established” standard is thus inherently backward-looking. … Further, whether the law was clearly established is inextricably intertwined with the new qualified immunity defense and only relevant to this case to the extent the new qualified immunity defense is operative in this

Parker v. Armstrong

District Court, W.D. Texas · Aug 7, 2024

Qualified immunity bars suit against officers in their official capacity from liability for civil damages so long as their conduct does not violate a clearly established statutory constitutional right. … Jones, 922 F.3d 309, 318 (5th Cir. 2019) (holding that before the qualified immunity inquiry discretionary authority must be established)).

Manchester v. State of Louisiana

District Court, M.D. Louisiana · Nov 13, 2024

Again, qualification examinations are generally conducted at the pretext stage of a Title VII failure-to-promote analysis, and even if Plaintiff were “clearly better qualified,” Toval, 614 F. … dofes] not establish that [an applicant] is clearly better qualified” (quoting Price v. Fed. Express Corp., 283 F.3d 715, 723 (5th Cir. 2002)); see also Deines v. Tex.

Dennis Ryan, Jr. v. Officer Mary Armstrong

850 F.3d 419 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Mar 7, 2017

A government official is entitled to qualified immunity unless he has violated a clearly established constitutional right. Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 232 , 129 S.Ct. 808 , 172 L.Ed.2d 565 (2009). A. … Although the district court did not reach this question, “[w]hether an asserted federal right was clearly established at a particular time, so that a public official who allegedly violated the right has no qualified immunity

Mosher

District Court, D. Arizona · Mar 9, 2026

Clearly Established Right 21 Although a jury could find that Defendants violated Plaintiff’s constitutional rights, 22 an “official is entitled to qualified immunity unless … established at the time of the incident and holds that 8 || Defendant Wick is entitled to qualified immunity.