Case law

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

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.

Opinion No.

Arkansas Attorney General Reports · Oct 17, 2003

Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, an individual is immune if the actions complained of were taken in good faith in the performance of one's duties, and the acts do not violate any clearly established constitutional … The immunity is "qualified" because it does not obtain where the activity is in violation of clearly established law that a reasonable person would have known. Id. ; Robinson v.

Armstrong v. City of Melvindale

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

But where, as here, Defendants do not dispute the facts—they claim instead that the alleged facts do not reflect a violation of clearly established law—“a district court’s denial of a claim of qualified immunity . . . is … right was clearly established.”

Charles Odom v. Kenan Kaizer

864 F.3d 920 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jul 26, 2017

right was so ‘clearly established’ at the time of the alleged violation that a reasonable officer would have known that his conduct was unlawful.” … established,” fulfilling part of the qualified immunity test.

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.

Eric Burke v. Wetzel County Commission

815 S.E.2d 520 · West Virginia Supreme Court · Jun 6, 2018

Lemley is entitled to qualified immunity because he acted in his official capacity and did not violate any clearly established law of which a reasonable official would have known. … Lemley did not violate any clearly established laws of which a reasonable official would have known. Mr.

Philip R. Plant v. Morton International, Inc.

212 F.3d 929 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · May 12, 2000

The ADA Claim In order to establish a prima facie case of discrimination under the ADA, Plant must show 1) that he is disabled; 2) that he is otherwise qualified for his previous position with Morton, with or without reasonable … Although the evidence did not clearly indicate that Plant’s condition was temporary, Plant was unable to come forward with any evidence that it was permanent, and the mere possibility of recurrence is not sufficient to establish

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.

Michele Rafferty v. Trumbull Cty., Ohio

915 F.3d 1087 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Feb 15, 2019

Qualified Immunity “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 … “To qualify as clearly established, [t]he contours of the right must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that right.” Kindl v.

Erickson v. County of Clay

451 N.W.2d 666 · Court of Appeals of Minnesota · Feb 27, 1990

; and that neither Mickelberg and Shoop nor Costello are entitled to any qualified immunity because their conduct in participating in the grand jury deliberations was unreasonable and clearly exceeded established norms. … the media was unreasonable and clearly exceeded established legal norms.

Max Ross v. Ed Hinton, Jr.

937 F.2d 609 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 9, 1991

Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-24 (1986). 8 Ross argues that the district court erred in finding that defendants were entitled to qualified immunity for their actions. We disagree. … Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (1982) (state officials are entitled to qualified immunity unless their actions violated a clearly established constitutional or statutory right of which a reasonable person would have known).

Sturdivant v. Fine

22 F.4th 930 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jan 7, 2022

Qualified immunity protects public officials from liability for violating statutory or constitutional rights that are not clearly established. See Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 231 (2009). … Sch., 321 F.3d 1285, 1288–89 (10th Cir. 2003) (concluding that a teacher was not entitled to qualified immunity from a student’s claim of sexual harassment because the right had been clearly established in employment

State ex rel. West Virginia Department of Health & Human Resources v. Kaufman

203 W. Va. 56 · West Virginia Supreme Court · Jul 10, 1998

from suit based upon (1) statutory immunity; (2) quasi-judicial immunity; (3) common-law doctrine of qualified immunity and no violation of a clearly established right; and (4) absence of duty based upon the public duty … ; (3) common-law doctrine of qualified immunity and no violation of a clearly established right; and (4) absence of duty based upon the public duty doctrine.

Jerome Yates, Jameela Yates v. City of Cleveland, Sanford L. Currie, Officer

941 F.2d 444 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Oct 1, 1991

in light of the legal rules that were ‘clearly established’ at the time it was taken. … [O]ur cases establish that the right the official is alleged to have violated must have been ‘clearly established’ in a more particularized, and hence more relevant, sense: The contours of the right must be sufficiently clear

Noyes v. Moccia, et al.

District Court, D. New Hampshire · Jun 24, 1999

Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, "government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established … would violate plaintiff's clearly established constitutional rights.

Mata v. Anderson

760 F. Supp. 2d 1068 · District Court, D. New Mexico · Jan 24, 2009

Clearly Established Law. … Moreover, he does not enjoy qualified immunity, because retaliatory prosecution has been clearly established as a constitutional violation, and the allegations in the First Amended Complaint, if taken as true, establish such

BROWN v. ROBINETT

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Feb 19, 2021

"Qualified immunity protects public officials from liability for damages if their actions did not violate clearly established rights of which a reasonable person would have known." Fleming v. … Clearly, an entitlement to qualified immunity cannot be established by the mere incantation of magic words, purportedly buttressed by endless pages of quotes relating to the doctrine. Arguably, Ms.

Fenstermaker v. City of Dayton, Ohio

712 F. Supp. 639 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Aug 17, 1988

, but also [in order to find a claim of qualified immunity to be well taken] that it was not clearly established that the circumstances under which the official or officer was confronted at the time of the challenged action … Qualified immunity protects the individual police officers from liability under federal law for their official actions, if said actions do not violate clearly established legal, statutory or constitutional rights.

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.”