Case law

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.

Daniels Sharpsmart, Inc. v. Karen Smith

889 F.3d 608 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · May 2, 2018

In determining whether qualified immunity applies, courts “must determine whether: (1) the facts adduced constitute the violation of a constitutional right; and (2) the constitutional right was clearly established at the … It is that rock upon which the district court’s qualified immunity decision founders. The district court was satisfied that, as it said, “[t]he extraterritorialty doctrine has been clearly established for decades.”

Barbara Hager v. Arkansas Dept. of Health

735 F.3d 1009 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Nov 14, 2013

Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, a court must dismiss a complaint against a government official in his individual capacity that fails to state a claim for violation of “clearly established statutory or constitutional … See also Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 685; Mitchell, 472 U.S. at 526 (“Unless the plaintiff’s allegations state a claim of violation of clearly established law, a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal before

Katrina McGrew v. Sergeant Duncan

937 F.3d 664 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Sep 4, 2019

Qualified immunity shields the officers from suit if (1) they did not violate any of McGrew’s constitutional rights or (2) the violated rights, if any, were not “clearly established” when they acted. Pearson v. … So whether they are entitled to qualified immunity turns on whether McGrew suffered an injury and whether the right she claims they violated was clearly established when they acted.

Richard Manriquez v. Joel Ensley

46 F.4th 1124 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Aug 30, 2022

But there still might not be “clearly established” case law in our circuit to withstand qualified immunity. Cf. Jessop v. … The officers are entitled to qualified immunity because it was not clearly established then that the search violated the Fourth Amendment.

Tortes v. King County

119 Wash. App. 1 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Jun 2, 2003

These individual public officials are immune from personal liability under the doctrine of qualified immunity. … It is preferred that a defendant’s entitlement to qualified immunity be decided as a matter of law on summary judgment. 19 The central purpose of qualified immunity is to protect public officials from interference with their

Harris v. Eichbaum

642 F. Supp. 1056 · District Court, D. Maryland · Sep 2, 1986

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____ By defining the limits of qualified immunity essentially … Forsyth that: “Unless the plaintiff’s allegations state a claim of violation of clearly established law, a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal before the commencement of discovery.

Creech Poole v. City of Shreveport

13 F.4th 420 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Sep 10, 2021

Qualified immunity shields officers from liability unless their conduct violates a clearly established federal right of which a reasonable person would have known. Kisela v. Hughes, 138 S. … of clearly established law.

James P. Crocker v. Deputy Sheriff Steven Eric Beatty

995 F.3d 1232 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Apr 20, 2021

The district court held that Beatty was entitled to qualified immunity because the law underlying Crocker’s First Amendment claim wasn’t clearly established. We agree. … In my view, Smith clearly establishes that Mr. Crocker had a right to photograph the accident scene and I would therefore reverse the grant of qualified immunity to Deputy Beatty on this claim.

Ewy v. Sturtevant

962 P.2d 991 · Colorado Court of Appeals · Jun 25, 1998

conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. … In determining the applicability of qualified immunity, the court need not decide whether specific actions of the officials were unconstitutional, but merely whether the conduct was so clearly unconstitutional that any reasonable

Terry Cravener v. Mike Shuster

885 F.3d 1135 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Mar 27, 2018

Government officials, like the deputies here, are entitled to qualified immunity “unless the official’s conduct violated a clearly established constitutional or statutory right of which a reasonable official would have known … Determining qualified immunity, this court considers a “two-step inquiry: (1) whether the facts shown by the plaintiff make out a violation of a constitutional or statutory right, and (2) whether that right was clearly established

ND Indoor RV Park v. State

2025 ND 92 · North Dakota Supreme Court · May 8, 2025

Wishnatsky, at 401. [¶18] Wagendorf and Nelson are protected by qualified immunity unless the Park “pleads facts showing (1) that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was clearly … A constitutional right is “clearly established” if the “contours of the right [are] sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that right.

Turner v. Perry

278 S.W.3d 806 · Texas Court of Appeals, 14th District (Houston) · Feb 26, 2009

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity protects governmental officials performing discretionary functions frpm suit if their actions were objectively reasonable in the light of then clearly-established law. Anderson v. … Appellants contend that they nevertheless are entitled to qualified immunity because they did not violate a clearly established right protecting Perry’s speech.

Huber v. North Carolina State University

163 N.C. App. 638 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Apr 20, 2004

Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, “government officials per *645 forming discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established … We must therefore determine whether Plaintiff’s right to privacy was clearly established at the time.

Davdrin Goffin v. Robbie Ashcraft

977 F.3d 687 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Oct 15, 2020

Officer Ashcraft is entitled to qualified immunity if her conduct did not “violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. … Police officers are not entitled to qualified immunity if “(1) they violated a federal statutory or constitutional right, and (2) the unlawfulness of their conduct was clearly established at the time.”

Reece v. Groose

60 F.3d 487 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jul 20, 1995

was clearly established. 9 On the other side of the line is Anderson v. … Qualified immunity shields government officials from civil lawsuits when "their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known." Harlow v.

McGrew v. Duncan

333 F. Supp. 3d 730 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Aug 10, 2018

Government officials are entitled to qualified immunity where their actions do not "violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known." Greene v. … This right was "clearly established" for qualified immunity purposes at the time McGrew was placed in handcuffs. Id. (citation omitted).

Wiggins v. Greiner

132 F. App'x 861 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · May 18, 2005

Wiggins submits that the highlighted language in Roberts clearly establishes that prosecution efforts to locate a witness must be “undertaken prior to trial” to demonstrate good-faith. … Whether the challenged photo display in this case clearly qualifies as a confirmatory identification is an issue of state law not relevant to our habeas review. See Estelle v.

City of Akron v. Brown

122 N.E.3d 672 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Nov 7, 2018

(Emphasis added.) {¶ 8} The plain language of R.C. 2925.11(B)(2)(b) clearly provides qualified individuals with immunity for a minor drug possession offense pursuant to R.C. Chapter 2925. … Brown had qualified for immunity and, consequently, dismissal of a charge for minor drug possession, any allied offenses would not "merge" for that purpose and there would be no grounds to extend immunity or dismiss any charges

Mildred Robinson v. Daniel Arrugueta

415 F.3d 1252 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jul 7, 2005

The court found, however, that under the second step the right violated was not clearly established and thus Arrugueta was entitled to qualified immunity. … established, and thus, Arrugueta is entitled to qualified immunity under this step as well.