Case law

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.

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.

Davison v. Plowman

247 F. Supp. 3d 767 · District Court, E.D. Virginia · Mar 28, 2017

Defendant is entitled to qualified immunity with respect to his decision to block Plaintiff from further . posting on the Loudoun County Commonwealth’s Attorney Facebook Page. • Qualified ■ immunity . serves to shield government … In evaluating whether Defendant is entitled to qualified immunity, the Court must determine “(1) whether the plaintiff has established the violation of a constitutional right, and (2) whether that right was clearly established

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.

Damon Wilson v. Prince George's County, Md

893 F.3d 213 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Jun 18, 2018

Nevertheless, we affirm the district court’s determination that Officer Gill is entitled to qualified immunity, because we hold that the constitutional violation was not clearly established when the incident occurred. … A right need not be recognized by a court in a specific factual context before such right may be considered “clearly established” for purposes of qualified immunity.

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.

Osborne v. Vincent

District Court, D. Oregon · Aug 11, 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.”)

Miller v. City of Philadelphia

954 F. Supp. 1056 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 29, 1997

Defendants further claim that Scheer has qualified immunity under § 1983 because he did not violate a clearly established constitutional right held by plaintiffs. i. … (holding standards for interviewing children that had allegedly been sexually abused not clearly established and defendants were entitled to qualified immunity), cer t. denied, 484 U.S. 828 , 108 S.Ct. 97 , 98 L.Ed.2d 58

Novitsky v. City of Aurora

491 F.3d 1244 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jul 5, 2007

Novitsky’s first claim, the district court concluded the officers were entitled to qualified immunity because, on June 9, 2001, they did not violate clearly established law by removing M r. … W e therefore turn to the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis, asking whether Officer W ortham violated clearly established law. 2.

Bettio v. Village of Northfield

775 F. Supp. 1545 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Oct 18, 1991

asserted is clearly established. … As such, there being no clearly established right in existence as to this portion of the claim, Satola and Varga do not lose the protection of qualified immunity here.

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

Bradley v. Medical Board

56 Cal. App. 4th 445 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 15, 1997

Immunity The qualified immunity defense protects “government officials performing discretionary functions . . . from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or … When qualified immunity is asserted, we must undertake a two-step analysis: “(1) Was the law governing the official’s conduct clearly established?

Easter v. Powell

467 F.3d 459 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Oct 10, 2006

decide if the defendant’s conduct was objectively reasonable in light of the clearly established law at the time of the incident.11 A government official is entitled to qualified immunity if either (1) the plaintiff failed … When a government official violates a constitutional right, the official is nevertheless entitled to qualified immunity if his or her conduct is objectively reasonable in light of clearly established law.27 A law is “clearly

John E. Green v. J. Kenneth Brantley, Edgar v. Lewis, Craig R. Smith, Garland P. Castleberry

941 F.2d 1146 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Sep 12, 1991

The doctrine of qualified immunity affords immunity from suit to government officials performing discretionary functions as long as “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of … that make out violations of clearly established law.

Estate of Hill ex rel. Hill v. Miracle

853 F.3d 306 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 4, 2017

Miracle’s qualified-immunity defense Qualified immunity shields “government officials ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … Miracle is therefore entitled to qualified immunity on Hill’s § 1983 claim of excessive force. 2. Hill’s Fourth Amendment right was not clearly established.

Bradley Monical v. Christina Towers

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Feb 7, 2020

immunity. … Hammond, 821 F.3d 1085, 1090 (9th Cir. 2016) (for a right “[t]o be clearly established” for purposes of qualified immunity, “a right must be sufficiently clear that every reasonable official would have understood that

JL ex rel. Thompson v. New Mexico Department of Health

169 F. Supp. 3d 1194 · District Court, D. New Mexico · Mar 4, 2016

Although qualified immunity is most often raised at the summary judgment stage, the Tenth Circuit has recognized the propriety of raising a qualified immunity defense in a motion to dismiss. … Defendants argue that they are shielded by qualified immunity from Plaintiffs’ substantive due process claims because the rights that Plaintiffs assert were not clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct that

Dorothy King, R.N. and Patricia Battle, R.N. v. Virginia Betts,, Commissioner of the Tennessee Department of Mental Health and Developmental Disabilities, in her Individual Capacity

Court of Appeals of Tennessee · Dec 18, 2009

As to the issue of qualified immunity, the trial court found that qualified immunity applied as “the right that was allegedly violated is not a clearly established right of which a reasonable person would have known.” … Further, qualified immunity would not apply if the Appellees’ conduct was unreasonable “in light of the clearly established constitutional rights.” Williams, 186 F.3d at 691.

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.