Case law

Osborne v. Vincent

District Court, D. Oregon · Aug 7, 2025

violated a clearly established constitutional right. … Pauly, 580 U.S. 73, 78-79 (2017) (“Qualified immunity attaches when an official’s conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”)

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.

Hannah David v. Gina Kaulukukui

38 F.4th 792 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jun 27, 2022

Qualified immunity shields government officials from liability for civil damages unless their conduct “violated a clearly established constitutional right.” Williamson v. … To determine whether an official is entitled to qualified immunity, the court asks “(1) whether the [official’s] conduct violated a constitutional right, and (2) whether that right was clearly established at the time of the

B.R. v. West Virginia DHHR

West Virginia Supreme Court · Oct 13, 2020

In affirming the circuit court’s decision, this Court found that pleading simple negligence, without a violation of a clearly established right, is insufficient to overcome qualified immunity. … I. reveals that this Court reviewed the pleadings and found that “[p]leading simple negligence, without a violation of a clearly established right, is insufficient to overcome qualified immunity.” B.R.I., at *2. In B.

John Moody v. Mich. Gaming Control Bd.

871 F.3d 420 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Sep 11, 2017

Therefore, the right was clearly established. … We therefore reverse the district court’s grant of qualified immunity on the Fifth Amendment claim, and hold that the right articulated in Moody I was clearly established at the time of the violation. 2.

Camden v. Hilton

360 S.C. 164 · Court of Appeals of South Carolina · Jun 7, 2004

“The doctrine of qualified immunity shields police officers acting in their official capacity from suits for damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 , unless their actions violate clearly-established rights of which an objectively … Treen, 671 F.2d 892, 896 (5th Cir.1982) (“Qualified immunity now depends on the objective reasonableness of an officials conduct, as measured by reference to clearly established law, not upon malice or other subjective factors

Stephen Hill v. City of Fountain Valley

70 F.4th 507 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jun 1, 2023

In short, qualified immunity applies because the Hills have not offered any factually analogous case “clearly 16 HILL V. … Because this law was clearly established at the time of the events here, the officers are not entitled to qualified immunity.

Gregory Baldwin v. City of Estherville, Iowa Matt Reineke, Individually and in His Official Capacity as an Officer of the Estherville Police Department and Matt Hellickson, Individually and in His Official Capacity as an Officer of the Estherville Police Department

915 N.W.2d 259 · Supreme Court of Iowa · Jun 29, 2018

to believe that their actions would not violate a clearly established right of the plaintiff's under the circumstances." 284 Conn. 502 , 935 A.2d 126 , 144 (2007). … Qualified immunity would be available "if the defendant show[ed] that the state constitutional right alleged to have been violated was not clearly established." Id. at 1094 .

Edmiston v. City Of Port Angeles

360 F. Supp. 3d 1147 · District Court, W.D. Washington · Dec 21, 2018

Therefore, in the absence of authority demonstrating that the right was clearly established, Officer Brusseau is entitled to qualified immunity. … Nor can Edmiston negate that Officer Brusseau is entitled to qualified immunity on the search issue, if a search indeed occurred, in the absence of clearly established law.

Division of Employment Security v. Board of Police Commissioners

864 F.3d 974 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jul 28, 2017

The Officers “Qualified immunity shields a government official from liability unless his conduct violates ‘clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’” … “Our prior cases have clearly established that use of [a] taser on a nonfleeing, nonviolent suspected misdemeanant [is] unreasonable.” Brossart v.

John Mclaughlin v. Alex Watson

271 F.3d 566 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Nov 20, 2001

Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 817 , 102 S.Ct. 2727, 2732 (1982) (citations omitted)). 21 In order to defeat an assertion of qualified immunity, a plaintiff must allege that the official violated a "clearly established" right. … In the Motion to Dismiss, Stiles clearly asserted a "qualified immunity" defense. App. at 258.

Mitchell v. Town of Hayneville, Alabama

District Court, M.D. Alabama · Feb 6, 2023

Qualified immunity “protects government officials ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … Whether the Right Was Clearly Established The court now turns to the remaining qualified-immunity determination: Whether Reeves, Tyson-Bailey

Colbruno v. Kessler

928 F.3d 1155 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jul 2, 2019

"Because qualified immunity establishes immunity from suit rather than a mere defense to liability, a district court's denial of a claim of qualified immunity is immediately appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 ." Id. … Qualified Immunity There remains the question whether Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. Was the law clearly established that their conduct (as alleged by Plaintiff) violated the Fourteenth Amendment?

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.

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.

Bentz v. Marion, Kansas, City of Case Consolidated for Discovery; All Non-Dispositive filings to be made in Lead Case 23-cv-1179

District Court, D. Kansas · Mar 28, 2025

Sept. 30, 2021) (declining to consider qualified immunity where defendants didn’t “address whether the Fourth Amendment rights at issue were clearly established”). … So, Hudlin didn’t violate clearly established law and qualifies for qualified immunity.

Washington v. City of Cincinnati, Ohio

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Feb 7, 2024

That is enough for the first prong of the qualified immunity analysis. … Luna, 577 U.S. 7, 12 (2015) (requiring cases proffered as factually analogous “to speak [] to the specific circumstances” at bar for the clearly established prong of qualified immunity).

Rainey v. Hartness

339 Ark. 293 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Dec 2, 1999

Qualified Immunity — Federal Law Generally, government officials performing discretionary functions are granted a qualified immunity from suit under section 1983 and are “shielded from liability for civil damages insofar … Courts evaluating a claim of immunity must determine whether the plaintiff has alleged the deprivation of an actual constitutional right and, if so, whether that right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation

Filomena Leo, in Their Individual and Official Capacities v. Iliana Trevino

Texas Court of Appeals, 13th District · Jun 8, 2006

Constitutional Violation The first prong of any analysis of the availability of qualified immunity requires the establishment of the violation of a "clearly established right." Beck , 204 F.3d at 638. … The School District Employees are entitled to qualified immunity from the Trevinos' claims, absent a showing of a violation of "clearly established constitutional law."

Opinion No.

Arkansas Attorney General Reports · Oct 17, 2003

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