Case law

Daniel Andrews v. City of Henderson

35 F.4th 710 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · May 23, 2022

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity shields government officials from civil damages unless an official “violate[s] a clearly established constitutional right.” Monzon v. … Clearly Established Right Even if a government official violates a constitutional right, the official is entitled to qualified immunity unless the violated right was clearly established at the time of the incident.

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.

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.

Hernandez v. Wells

District Court, M.D. Florida · May 20, 2022

immunity on summary judgment because his qualified immunity turned on a dispute of fact). … “Falsifying facts to establish probable cause is clearly unconstitutional and has been ‘clearly established’ long before [Hernandez’s] arrest.” Mead v. McKeithen, 571 F. App’x 788, 792 (11th Cir. 2014) (per curiam).

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.

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.

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.

Blair Hays v. J. Gastelo

District Court, C.D. California · May 4, 2021

Qualified Immunity 20 Courts recognize qualified immunity “to balance competing values: not only the 21] importance of a damages remedy to protect the rights of citizens . . . but also ‘the need to protect … As 28 such, “[o]nce the official pleads qualified immunity, the burden is on the plaintiff to prove two elements: (1) that the right was violated; and (2) that the right was clearly established at the 2| time

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

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.

Sugg v. Albuquerque Public School District

128 N.M. 1 · New Mexico Court of Appeals · Aug 16, 1999

Qualified immunity is subject to the collateral order doctrine which grants this Court appellate jurisdiction over suits barred by qualified immunity because qualified immunity is a final bar to suit and is therefore immediately … that the law was clearly established at the time when the alleged violation occurred.

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.

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.

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.”

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.

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

Finlan v. Dallas Independent School District

90 S.W.3d 395 · Texas Court of Appeals, 11th District (Eastland) · Nov 27, 2002

The defense of qualified immunity shields governmental officials from liability under Section 1983 for civil damages if “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … It did not address the first inquiry in the qualified immunity analysis; that is, it did not address the question of law whether the law was clearly established in 1992 that the filing of a civil suit, alleged to be malicious

Hooks v. Warren, City of

District Court, E.D. Michigan · Mar 30, 2024

Of course, qualified immunity would protect officers if their conduct did not violate clearly established rights. Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 231 (2009). … Though there are some differences between qualified immunity and Michigan statutory governmental immunity—qualified immunity uses an objective standard to evaluate reasonableness, for instance, while Michigan

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.'