Case law

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.

James Saylor v. Randy Kohl, M.D.

812 F.3d 637 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jan 29, 2016

was clearly established at the time of the deprivation.” … the violation was clearly established at the time in question, what was known to a person who might be shielded by qualified immunity, and the reasonableness of defendants'] actions.

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.

Anderson v. Furst

District Court, E.D. Michigan · Mar 20, 2020

further inquiries concerning qualified immunity. … Thereafter, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to establish that the defendant's conduct violated a right so clearly established that any official in his position would have clearly understood he was under an

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.)

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

Wallace v. King

626 F.2d 1157 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Jul 1, 1980

Doe v. Connecticut Department of Children & Youth Services

712 F. Supp. 277 · District Court, D. Connecticut · May 17, 1989

Qualified Immunity Qualified or “good faith” immunity protects government officials performing discretionary functions from liability to the extent that their “conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … the legal rules that were ‘clearly established’ at the time it was taken.”

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

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.

Ex parte B.T. Roberts, in his capacity as a member of the Auburn University Board of Trustees PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS (In re: Patti H. Northcutt and Walter M. Northcutt v. B.T. Roberts, in his capacity as a member of the Auburn University Board of Trustees) (Lee Circuit Court: CV-22-900114).

Supreme Court of Alabama · Jun 27, 2025

'To overcome qualified immunity, the plaintiff must satisfy a two-prong test; he must show that: (1) the [public official] violated a constitutional right, and (2) this right was clearly established at the … as follows: "To defeat Lawton's qualified immunity, Echols must also prove that Lawton violated a constitutional right that 'was "clearly established" at the time of the challenged conduct.'

Barbara Coleman v. Houston Independent School District, Anita Ellis

113 F.3d 528 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · May 19, 1997

“Denial of summary judgment on the ground of qualified immunity is immediately appealable to the extent that the question on appeal is whether the undisputed facts amount to a violation of clearly established law.” … a clearly established constitutional right.

Sanchez v. Hartley

810 F.3d 750 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jan 11, 2016

In applying this standard to the defense of qualified immunity, we consider whether Mr. Sanchez’s factual allegations and related inferences show the violation of a clearly established constitutional right. … But to overcome qualified immunity, Mr. Sanchez must also show that the underlying right was clearly established in 2009, when the events took place.

Sweatman v. Giles

161 So. 3d 212 · Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama · Apr 19, 2013

‘An official is entitled to qualified immunity if he is performing discretionary functions and his actions do “‘not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known … [’] complaint fails to allege a violation of a clearly established constitutional right.

Newton v. Etoch

332 Ark. 325 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Mar 19, 1998

Clearly, the State has not been named as a party, but our inquiry does not stop there. We established the test for whether a suit is one brought against the State in Page v. … Supreme Court has distinguished qualified immunity and absolute immunity by stating that qualified immunity depends on the circumstances and the prosecutor’s motives, as established by the evidence. Imbler v.

Jerome Yates, Jameela Yates v. City of Cleveland, Sanford L. Currie, Officer

941 F.2d 444 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Oct 1, 1991

in light of the legal rules that were ‘clearly established’ at the time it was taken. … [O]ur cases establish that the right the official is alleged to have violated must have been ‘clearly established’ in a more particularized, and hence more relevant, sense: The contours of the right must be sufficiently clear

Erickson v. County of Clay

451 N.W.2d 666 · Court of Appeals of Minnesota · Feb 27, 1990

; and that neither Mickelberg and Shoop nor Costello are entitled to any qualified immunity because their conduct in participating in the grand jury deliberations was unreasonable and clearly exceeded established norms. … the media was unreasonable and clearly exceeded established legal norms.