Case law

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.

Cantrell v. DeKalb County

78 S.W.3d 902 · Court of Appeals of Tennessee · Aug 3, 2001

The Qualified Immunity Defense The dispositive issue for this appeal is whether the law enforcement officials have presented undisputed facts demonstrating that they are entitled to qualified immunity as a matter of law. … Cantrell’s clearly established rights. ■ 1. Mr. Cantrell’s Free Exercise Rights Mr. Cantrell, like all persons, possesses certain clearly established rights with regard to the practice of his religion.

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.

Mohammad Siddique v. Michael Laliberte

972 F.3d 898 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Aug 26, 2020

We elect to resolve this case on the second part of the qualified immunity test—whether the right was clearly established. This appeal, in its current iteration, involves only a First Amendment retaliation claim. … No such clearly established law exists.

Keenan v. Ahern

District Court, E.D. Virginia · Mar 8, 2021

The doctrine of qualified immunity “shields government officials from liability for civil damages, provided that their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or … purposes of qualified immunity.”

Plummer v. Department of Corrections

305 N.J. Super. 365 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Nov 25, 1997

reasonable, thereby entitling them to qualified immunity as a matter of law. … However, the fact that the law at issue is clearly established will not deprive these defendants from the qualified immunity defense if, in light of the specific facts known to them, they could reasonably believe that probable

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.

Rouse v. Plantier

987 F. Supp. 302 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Dec 5, 1997

Although most defenses of qualified immunity stand or fall on whether the right allegedly violated was “clearly established,” it is quite clear that even where the right is clearly established, the defense is still available … been clearly established.

Hicks Hagan v. Funk

District Court, M.D. Tennessee · Sep 29, 2025

statutory or constitutional right, and (2) the unlawfulness of their conduct was clearly established at the time.” … For purposes of qualified immunity, Defendant challenges only the clearly established prong.4 Defendant argues that it was not clearly established that changing Plaintiff’s job responsibilities because of

Clancy v. McCabe

441 Mass. 311 · Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · Mar 26, 2004

McCabe moved for summary judgment, claiming he was entitled to qualified immunity. … The doctrine of qualified immunity shields government officials, in the course of performing discretionary tasks, from liability for civil damages “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or

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.”

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

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

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.

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)).

Patton v. Bickford

529 S.W.3d 717 · Kentucky Supreme Court · Apr 1, 2016

We also conclude that the Teachers are not immune from suit on the basis of qualified official immunity. … SCHOOL ADMINISTRATORS MAKING SCHOOL POLICIES HAVE QUALIFIED OFFICIAL IMMUNITY; TEACHERS IMPLEMENTING SCHOOL POLICIES DO NOT .We begin by more clearly delineating the Estate’s arguments.

Bell v. Fort Wayne Police Department

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Jul 31, 2019

“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 … The United States Supreme Court recently reiterated the standard in qualified immunity cases: Under our cases, the clearly established right must be defined with specificity.

KARA B. v. Dane County

198 Wis. 2d 24 · Court of Appeals of Wisconsin · Nov 2, 1995

Merely alleging a general violation of a right that may be clearly established by the constitution or á statute is insufficient clarity of established law to justify withholding qualified immunity. … Recognizing that the defendants' qualified immunity could be pierced "only if the specific right they violated was clearly established at the time they violated it," the K.H. court decided the issue against them.

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.