Case law

Norton v. Hall

834 A.2d 928 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Sep 30, 2003

of qualified immunity. … Even if the Nortons had produced facts sufficient to support a constitutional claim, Hall would be entitled to qualified immunity because, given the information she possessed, her conduct “does not violate clearly established

Owens v. Baltimore City State's Attorneys Office

767 F.3d 379 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Sep 24, 2014

Qualified immunity protects government officials from liability for “civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established ... rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … In evaluating whether qualified immunity exists, we must keep in mind that it is the plaintiffs constitutional right that must be clearly established, not a plaintiffs access to a monetary remedy.

Turner v. Giles

264 Ga. 812 · Supreme Court of Georgia · Dec 5, 1994

One of the grounds of appellants’ unsuccessful motion to dismiss was their claim of qualified immunity to appellee’s § 1983 action. … Indeed, the basic issue is substantially identical: A § 1983 complaint alleges that the defendant violated federal law, whereas the defendant’s claim of qualified immunity asserts that clearly established federal law was

Omar Ex Rel. Cannon v. Lindsey

243 F. Supp. 2d 1339 · District Court, M.D. Florida · Jan 14, 2003

Qualified Immunity Defendants, all of whom are being sued in them individual capacities, raise the defense of qualified immunity. … Last spring, the Supreme Court handed down a decision that clarifies how a court is to determine whether a particular right was “clearly established” for the purposes of a qualified immunity analysis. In Hope v.

Liebenstein v. Crowe

826 F. Supp. 1174 · District Court, E.D. Wisconsin · Sep 4, 1992

Once a public official has raised the defense of qualified immunity,, the plaintiff bears the burden of establishing the existence of the clearly established right that he claims was violated. Abel v. … The use of expert testimony is particularly ill-suited to defeat qualified immunity, especially when there is no clearly established law that the defendants violated.

Shearer v. Leuenberger

256 Neb. 566 · Nebraska Supreme Court · Apr 2, 1999

Whether an official may prevail in his or her qualified immunity defense depends upon the “ ‘objective reasonableness of [his or her] conduct as measured by reference to clearly established law.’ ” Id. … Hence, our analysis turns to whether or not that right was “clearly established” at the time of the alleged violation.

Van Sandt v. Brown

944 P.2d 449 · Alaska Supreme Court · Aug 22, 1997

Under federal case law, 5 a law enforcement officer is entitled to qualified immunity when performing a search and seizure if, in light of clearly established law and the information available to the officer at the time, … This rule was “clearly established law” at the time Brown searched Van Sandt’s trailer.

Sheldon v. City of Ambler

178 P.3d 459 · Alaska Supreme Court · Mar 14, 2008

Using the Saucier analysis, the superior court held that Jones and the City of Ambler were protected by qualified immunity because “[t]here was no clearly established law ... that would have given a reasonable officer notice … "If the law d[oes] not put the officer on notice that his conduct would be clearly unlawful, summary judgment based on qualified immunity is appropriate." Id. at 202, 121 S.Ct. 2151 . 12 .

Riddle v. City of Ottawa

12 Kan. App. 2d 714 · Court of Appeals of Kansas · May 20, 1988

If the law was clearly established, the immunity defense ordinarily should fail, since a reasonably competent public official should know the law governing his conduct. … If he did so act, he is entitled to qualified immunity.”

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.

Lum v. Koles

314 P.3d 546 · Alaska Supreme Court · Dec 13, 2013

established’ . . . .”) … The officers’ conduct was reasonable and certainly does not violate clearly established law, unlike that of the officers in Headwaters Forest Defense v.

DANIELS v. COOKE

District Court, S.D. Indiana · May 12, 2022

In other words, qualified immunity is appropriate when the clearly established law, as applied to the facts, "would have left objectively reasonable officials in a state of uncertainty." Horshaw v. … Under some "extraordinary circumstances," an official may be entitled to qualified immunity based on reasonable ignorance of clearly established law governing the official's conduct. Harlow v.

Timmon v. Wood

633 F. Supp. 2d 453 · District Court, W.D. Michigan · Apr 21, 2008

Applying those clearly established rules to this case, the dispositive issue with respect to qualified immunity is whether Defendants acted with the intent to silence Plaintiff’s viewpoint or whether they acted with the intent … If Defendants acted with intent to silence Plaintiffs viewpoint then they violated clearly established law and would not be entitled to qualified immunity.

Whiting v. Tunica County

222 F. Supp. 2d 809 · District Court, N.D. Mississippi · Jul 19, 2002

— was also clearly established. … The Court notes, under the first prong of the qualified immunity analysis, that the contours of this constitutional violation for qualified immunity purposes were clearly established at the relevant time.

Duncan v. City of Sandy Springs

District Court, N.D. Georgia · Sep 14, 2020

was clearly established when the violation occurred. … To overcome qualified immunity, the plaintiff bears the burden of showing that a defendant violated clearly established law. See Johnson v. Conway, 688 F. App’x 700, 706 (11th Cir. 2017).

Mason-Funk v. City of Neenah

895 F.3d 504 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jul 10, 2018

Even if the officers had used unreasonable force, the court concluded they were entitled to qualified immunity because the officers did not violate a clearly established right. Id. at 1016-22 . … "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." Kisela v.

Benjamin Fogle and Amanda Fogle, on behalf of minor child P.F. v. Clay Elementary School-Southeast Polk Community School District, Dirk Halupnik, Andrea Burns and Carla Rivas, individually and in their official capacities with Southeast Polk Community School District

Supreme Court of Iowa · Nov 14, 2025

Supp. 3d at 891–94.  9 illegality of the municipal employee’s actions was not clearly established when the employee acted. Iowa Code § 670.4A(1). … As a couplet, when the substantive qualified immunity defense is inapplicable, then the heightened qualified immunity pleading standard is also inapplicable.” Id. at 805.

Davis v. Clifford

825 F.3d 1131 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jun 13, 2016

Qualified immunity “shields public officials from damages actions unless their conduct was unreasonable in light of clearly established law.” Estate of Booker, 745 F.3d at 411 (quotation omitted). … Qualified immunity having been claimed, “the plaintiff carries a two-part burden to show: (1) that the defendant’s actions violated a federal constitutional or statutory right, and, if so, (2) that the right was clearly

Feltman v. Europe

District Court, D. Colorado · Jan 18, 2022

Once the qualified immunity defense is raised, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to demonstrate that the law was clearly established at the relevant time. Thomas v. Kaven, 765 F.3d 1183, 1194 (10th Cir. 2014). … According to the Tenth Circuit, “[i]n other words, ‘[g]eneral statements of the law can clearly establish a right for qualified immunity purposes if they apply with obvious clarity to the specific conduct in question.

Hoefling v. City of Miami

17 F. Supp. 3d 1227 · District Court, S.D. Florida · May 6, 2014

“Unless the plaintiffs allegations state a claim of violation of clearly established law, a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal before the commencement of discovery.” Behrens v. … On a motion to dismiss, “[t]o evaluate claims of qualified immunity, the Court considers whether (1) the plaintiff has alleged a violation of a constitutional right; and (2) whether the right was ‘clearly established’ at