Case law

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.

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.”

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 .

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.

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.

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.

Self v. City of Mansfield

369 F. Supp. 3d 684 · District Court, N.D. Texas · Mar 26, 2019

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 statutory … a clearly established constitutional right.

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.

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.

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.

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.

HIRA Educational Services Nort v. Frank Augustine

991 F.3d 180 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Mar 15, 2021

B Qualified immunity shields officials from civil liability “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … When analyzing a qualified immunity claim we consider “(1) whether the plaintiff sufficiently alleged the violation of a constitutional right, and (2) whether the right was ‘clearly established’ at the time of the official

Dagdagan v. City of Vallejo

682 F. Supp. 2d 1100 · District Court, E.D. California · Jan 7, 2010

A right is clearly established if a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that right. If the right is not clearly established, then the officer is entitled to qualified immunity. … Defendants’ Motion for Qualified Immunity Each Defendant argues even if his actions violated Plaintiffs Fourth Amendment rights, the defense of qualified immunity shields him from liability. 4 The qualified immunity analysis

Kyle v. Civil Service Com'n

588 So. 2d 1154 · Louisiana Court of Appeal · Jan 3, 1992

Economou, 438 U.S. 478 , 98 S.Ct. 2894 , 57 L.Ed.2d 895 (1978). [4] However, we need not decide whether absolute immunity applies to the present factual situation since we find that the doctrine of qualified immunity is clearly … Considering the above cited principles, we now review the pleadings in this matter to determine whether the plaintiff has set forth material facts establishing that the defendants violated a clearly established right of which

Kersavage v. University of Tennessee

731 F. Supp. 1327 · District Court, E.D. Tennessee · Dec 5, 1989

Moreover, the Court does not believe that qualified immunity applies to the individual defendants as a matter of law because the law of patent infringement is clearly established, relegating the application of such immunity … Reconsideration of Qualified Immunity The two individual defendants reassert their defense of qualified immunity, contending that under applicable precedent they could not have known that their conduct violated established

Amir Brandy v. City of St. Louis, Missouri

75 F.4th 908 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jul 28, 2023

“To defeat qualified immunity, [Brandy] must prove that: ‘(1) the facts, viewed in the light most favorable to [him], demonstrate the deprivation of a constitutional or statutory right; and (2) the right was clearly established … But just because the law is clearly established does not mean there was a constitutional violation.

Austin Webster v. Saint Louis County

135 F.4th 614 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Apr 24, 2025

In the alternative, the district court concluded that Lemke was entitled to qualified immunity because her action did not violate a clearly established right. Webster also sued Lemke and St. … A government official is entitled to qualified immunity from suit unless the official’s conduct violated a clearly established right of which a reasonable official would have known. Harlow v.

Tayvin Galanakis v. City of Newton, Iowa

134 F.4th 998 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Apr 17, 2025

“An official is not entitled to qualified immunity if (1) the plaintiff demonstrates the violation of a constitutional right, and (2) that right was ‘clearly established’ at the time of the official’s alleged wrongdoing.” … Independent of federal qualified immunity, Iowa officers enjoy statutory immunity where “[t]he right . . . secured by law was not clearly established at the time of the alleged deprivation, or at the time of the alleged deprivation