Case law

Christopher Stoner v. Eugene Watlingten

735 F.3d 799 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Nov 7, 2013

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 … Under these principles, we frame the clearly-established question as whether a reasonable officer would have known that he violated clearly established Fourth Amendment law by arresting Stoner for violating Ark.

Estate of Joseph Valverde v. Dodge

967 F.3d 1049 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jul 30, 2020

On this issue we rely on the second prong of qualified immunity, the absence of clearly established law to support Plaintiff’s claim. … Prong Two - Clearly Established Law Whether the district court properly denied qualified immunity to Sergeant Dodge turns on whether the Estate has shown that his challenged conduct violated clearly established law

Coollick v. Hughes

699 F.3d 211 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Oct 24, 2012

-1- Plaintiff-Appellee’s clearly established rights. Defendant-Appellant is, therefore, entitled to qualified immunity. … We hold that Hughes’s conduct in this case, even when viewed in the light most favorable to Coollick, did not violate Coollick’s clearly established rights. Hughes is therefore entitled to qualified immunity.

Hlubek v. Pelecky

701 N.W.2d 93 · Supreme Court of Iowa · Jul 22, 2005

We quoted a Supreme Court case regarding qualified immunity and the philosophy underlying it: “[T]he qualified immunity defense ‘shield[s] [government agents] from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does … not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known....’

Goodwin v. City of Fultondale

706 So. 2d 766 · Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama · Oct 17, 1997

immunity because their actions violated clearly established constitutional law. … Clearly, the above testimony, alone, is insufficient to establish that Officer Hamilton was *Page 770 acting pursuant to a well-established municipal policy or custom.

Florida Department of Environmental Protection v. Environmental Corp. of America

720 So. 2d 273 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Oct 16, 1998

Qualified immunity shields government actors from personal liability when their conduct does not violate clearly established rights. See Vermette v. … In light of the Environmental Trust decision, we conclude that the individual defendants here are entitled to qualified immunity because their conduct did not violate clearly established law.

Zwalesky v. Manistee County

749 F. Supp. 815 · District Court, W.D. Michigan · Aug 16, 1990

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY All of the individual defendants that had contact with the decedent on the day of his death assert that they are immune from suit in the present action due to the doctrine of qualified immunity. … Although qualified immunity is somewhat akin to an affirmative defense, the defendant does not bear the burden of establishing that his alleged conduct did not violate clearly established law. Dominque v.

Devin Ledbetter v. B. Helmers

133 F.4th 788 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Apr 3, 2025

Government officials are entitled to qualified immunity “if their actions do not ‘violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’” Wilson v. … Franklin, 388 F.3d 578, 582 (8th Cir. 2004) (noting that “clearly established” prong of qualified immunity protects officials from liability from “bad guesses in gray areas” (citation omitted)).

IN RE: DISCIPLINE OF CHRISTOPHER R. ARABIA

495 P.3d 1103 · Nevada Supreme Court · Sep 23, 2021

immunity and the State Bar lacked jurisdiction over him.2 Qualified immunity does not apply to attorney disciplinary proceedings Arabia contends that he cannot be professionally disciplined because his actions … are entitled to protection under the qualified immunity doctrine, and thus, this matter must be dismissed.

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.

Aboufariss v. City of De Kalb

305 Ill. App. 3d 1054 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jul 7, 1999

To determine whether qualified immunity applies to a defendant in section 1983 actions, courts examine whether the defendant’s conduct violated plaintiff’s constitutional rights and whether the rights were clearly established … Once the defendant raises the defense of qualified immunity, the plaintiff carries the burden of demonstrating the violation of a clearly established right. Forman, 104 F.3d at 957-58 .

Venisee v. Miami-Dade County

District Court, S.D. Florida · May 28, 2025

To qualify as clearly established, a legal principle “must be established with obvious clarity by the case law so that every objectively reasonable government official facing the circumstances would know that the official … was clearly established well before the night of the shooting in 2012.”).

Tucker v. Resha

648 So. 2d 1187 · Supreme Court of Florida · Nov 10, 1994

Her petition relied in large measure on the established federal appellate mechanism for interlocutory review of orders denying summary judgment on the issue of qualified immunity. [2] The district court determined that there … Under the qualified immunity doctrine, "government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory

Estate of Aaron Bruce Cadman v. Dennis, et al.

2018 DNH 018 · District Court, D. New Hampshire · Jan 29, 2018

Police officers “are entitled to qualified immunity under § 1983 unless (1) they violated a federal statutory or constitutional right, and (2) the unlawfulness of their conduct was ‘clearly established at the time.’” … (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). 5 The court focuses on the “clearly established” prong of the qualified immunity analysis because it is dispositive of the excessive force claim. See Pearson v.

Anne Powers v. John T. Lightner, D/B/A Lightner Auto Sales, Third-Party v. Barry Jones and Bruce White, Third-Party

752 F.2d 1251 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jan 16, 1985

Accordingly, the Court dropped the subjective component and announced that qualified immunity is to be judged by a simple objective standard: whether the acts of the official violated “clearly established statutory or constitutional … But when clearly established rights are involved, qualified immunity does not protect against trial: [W]e see no substantial basis for holding ... that executive officers generally may with impunity discharge their duties

White v. Taylor

677 F. Supp. 882 · District Court, S.D. Mississippi · Jan 13, 1988

ground of qualified immunity. … qualified immunity.

Sean G. Duffy v. Chase Riveland, Secretary of Washington State Department of Corrections, James Spalding, Director, Kenneth Ducharme, Superintendent, John Ahlsted, Corrections Sergeant, Peggy Williams, Clerk/typist, Jerry Sorenson, Corrections Officer, Frances Linder, Corrections Officer, Sean G. Duffy v. Craig Yost, Classification Counselor, William Woodly, Corrections Unit Supervisor, David Karton, Corrections Sergeant, Linda Willenberg, Corrections Program Manager, Kenneth Ducharme, Superintendent

98 F.3d 447 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Oct 11, 1996

The Supreme Court has established a three-part test for Article III standing. … immunity.

Swope v. Krischer

783 So. 2d 1164 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Apr 18, 2001

In discussing the requirement that the law be clearly established, the court stated: For the law to be clearly established to the point that qualified immunity does not apply, the law must have earlier been developed in such … The complaint does not show a violation of a clearly established right by these defendants. Therefore, qualified immunity protects appellees.

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.

Marglli Gallego v. Ivette Perez

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jun 11, 2024

DISCUSSION “Qualified immunity shields public officials from liability for civil damages when their conduct does not violate a constitutional right that was clearly established at the time … “[I]f a plaintiff cannot show that the law at issue was clearly established under the first . . . method, that usually means qualified immunity is appropriate.” King v.