Case law

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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."