Case law

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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

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.”)

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.

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

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.”)

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 .

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.