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.”)

Armstrong v. City Of Melvindale

432 F.3d 695 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jan 6, 2006

Qualified Immunity Framework 8 Qualified immunity shields public officials who perform discretionary functions from the necessity of defending against tort liability so long as their conduct does not violate clearly established … right was clearly established."

Herman Louis Dimartini v. Lynn Jay Ferrin, Special Agent, Federal Bureau of Investigation

889 F.2d 922 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Nov 21, 1989

immunity, arguing that his actions, even as alleged, did not violate clearly established fifth amendment rights. … Government officials performing discretionary functions enjoy qualified immunity, from liability for civil damages as long as their conduct does not violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which

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

James Rieves v. Town of Smyrna, Tenn.

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · May 15, 2020

Qualified immunity protects government officials from civil suits for damages, so long as their conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known … On a general level, “[i]t is clearly established that an arrest without probable cause violates the Fourth Amendment.” Crockett v.

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."

Amato v. Office of Com'r of Securities

644 So. 2d 412 · Louisiana Court of Appeal · Nov 15, 1994

The difference between absolute immunity and qualified immunity is at absolute immunity is a complete bar against suit for damages arising from a judge's conduct, while qualified immunity is an affirmative defense that protects … Thus, the majority was clearly wrong in holding that Stansbury was entitled to qualified immunity from liability for his actions under LSA-R.S. 9:2798.1.

Sherwood v. Mulvihill

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · May 15, 1997

As government officials engaged in discretionary functions, Defendants are qualifiedly immune from suits brought against them for damages under section 1983 "insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … Where a defendant asserts a qualified immunity defense in a motion for summary judgment, the 5 plaintiff bears the initial burden of showing that the defendant's conduct violated some clearly established

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?

Kirk Vester v. Daniel Hallock

864 F.3d 884 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jul 25, 2017

“We analyze qualified immunity in two steps: (1) whether the facts that a plaintiff has alleged . . . make out a violation of a constitutional right; and (2) whether the right at issue was clearly established at the time … However, as the district court correctly noted, “‘Qualified immunity is no immunity at all if clearly established law’ can be defined at such a ‘high level of generality.’” See City & Cty. of S.F., Calif. v.

Miller v. IDAHO STATE PATROL

150 Idaho 856 · Idaho Supreme Court · May 18, 2011

If a government official violates the claimant’s constitutional rights, qualified immunity “generally turns on the objective reasonableness of the action assessed in light of the legal rules that were clearly established … qualified-immunity inquiry instead.

Derrick Dutton v. Sheryl Hayes-Pupko

Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin) · Aug 7, 2008

He asserted that Hayes-Pupko had to overcome his assertion of qualified immunity by proving that he (1) violated her clearly established rights and (2) acted unreasonably or in bad faith in doing so. … Discussion "A government official performing discretionary functions is entitled to qualified immunity unless his conduct violates clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would

Moody v. Michigan Gaming Control Board

202 F. Supp. 3d 756 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Aug 15, 2016

Therefore, because a reasonable officer would have believed his actions to be lawful, the rights at issue were not clearly established. Accordingly, the Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity on these claims. C. … Finally, the Defendants argue that they are still entitled to qualified immunity because any violation did not involve a clearly established right that a reasonable person would have known. Dkt. No. 144 at 30-31 (Pg.

Caldwell v. LeFaver

928 F.2d 331 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Mar 20, 1991

Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, social workers are shielded from liability where their official conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would … However, assuming such a right was clearly established in April 1987, we do not think that it vitiates the application of qualified immunity here.

Romero v. Bexar County

993 F. Supp. 2d 658 · District Court, W.D. Texas · Jan 9, 2014

Government officials performing discretionary functions are protected from civil liability under the doctrine of qualified immunity if their conduct violates no “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … Qualified immunity is not only a defense to liability but also a immunity from suit. Pearson, 555 U.S. at 223 , 129 S.Ct. 808 .

Cunningham v. Gates

229 F.3d 1271 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Oct 31, 2000

In order to decide the qualified immunity claims, we must determine 1) whether non-shooting officers are entitled to qualified immunity because “jamming” does not violate clearly established law, 2) whether council members … are entitled to qualified immunity because a policy of indemnifying officers against punitive damages does not violate clearly established law, and 3) whether City attorneys are entitled to qualified immunity because recommending

Shedlock v. Department of Correction

442 Mass. 844 · Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · Dec 8, 2004

Gilley, 500 U.S. 226, 232 (1991) (right must be clearly established “at the time the defendant acted” to overcome defense of qualified immunity). … However, the issue whether a statutory right is “clearly established” for purposes of overcoming qualified immunity is not a matter of counting up the number of decisions that have gone each way and treating as “clearly established

Kapinski v. City of Albuquerque

964 F.3d 900 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jul 6, 2020

In response, Detective Juarez moved for summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity, arguing that omitting the video footage did not transgress any clearly established law. … clearly established.”

HARAPAT v. Vigil

676 F. Supp. 2d 1250 · District Court, D. New Mexico · Oct 13, 2009

Clearly Established Law. … Qualified immunity shields state officials from liability “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v.

Maras v. City of Brainerd

502 N.W.2d 69 · Court of Appeals of Minnesota · Jun 22, 1993

Qualified Immunity Appellants claim that, even if the trustee’s claims are actionable under section 1983, Pfingsten is entitled to qualified immunity against those claims. … The threshold question is whether Peterson had a clearly established right which Pfingsten violated. We conclude that he did.