Case law

Willie Dixon, Hyon Dixon v. Deputy Sheriff Donald Richer, Deputy Sheriff David Yarbrough

922 F.2d 1456 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · May 10, 1991

"Once a defendant raises the defense of qualified immunity `[t]he plaintiff carries the burden of convincing the court that the law was clearly established.'" Powell v. … Under the qualified immunity inquiry, we must next determine whether a reasonable officer could have believed that the conduct in question did not violate clearly established law.

Mario Cavin v. Mich. Dep't of Corr.

927 F.3d 455 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 17, 2019

Qualified immunity protects those officials whose “conduct does not violate clearly established . . . constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982). … (2) If so, was that right clearly established?

WVDHHR v. Virginia Prince

West Virginia Supreme Court · Mar 21, 2019

In the proceedings below and on appeal, the Guardians assert that the DHHR Petitioners are precluded from relying on qualified immunity protections because the DHHR Petitioners violated a clearly established right. … established constitutional or statutory right, and no basis for piercing the DHHR Petitioners’ qualified immunity exists.

Nelson v. Silverman

888 F. Supp. 1041 · District Court, S.D. California · Jun 6, 1995

The Bothke court merely assumed that there is a clearly established right of freedom from abusive tax collection activities for the purposes of dealing with a qualified immunity issue. … A defendant would be immune from suit if he could establish that his actions were objectively reasonable by reference to clearly established law. Harlow v.

Jones v. City & County of Denver

854 F.2d 1206 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Aug 12, 1988

Qualified immunity is an affirmative defense that shields governmental officials from personal liability unless their actions violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would … He relies on Colorado statutory and decisional law to argue that clearly established law requires arrest warrants in all cases.

Barnes v. Dekalb County

898 F. Supp. 2d 1317 · District Court, N.D. Georgia · Sep 24, 2012

Scott, 610 F.3d 701, 714 (11th Cir.2010) (qualified immunity offers complete protection for government officials sued in their individual capacities as long as their conduct does not “ ‘violate clearly established statutory … As discussed, qualified immunity protects government officials from liability for conduct that does not violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”

Oliver v. Arnold

19 F.4th 843 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Dec 15, 2021

Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, a § 1983 plaintiff must state not only a constitutional violation, but a “clearly established” one. … Rejecting a 3 For the same reasons, the teacher should at a minimum have received qualified immunity because he did not violate any clearly established law.

Bonenberger v. St. Louis Metropolitan Police Department

956 F. Supp. 2d 1059 · District Court, E.D. Missouri · Jul 8, 2013

Qualified immunity protects a government official from liability “unless the official’s conduct violated a clearly established constitutional or statutory right of which a reasonable person would have known.” … second part of the qualified immunity analysis.

Kenneth Hill v. Richard Trinci, Dominto Carrillo, Jackie Dent, Warner Lumpkins, Lee Williams, and Kandice Woodard

Texas Court of Appeals, 14th District (Houston) · Jul 24, 2012

Government officials performing discretionary functions have qualified immunity from a suit for damages under section 1983 so long as the official’s conduct does not violate clearly established constitutional or statutory … The plaintiff must show: (1) the official’s conduct violated a federally guaranteed right; (2) the right was clearly established; and (3) the official’s conduct was objectively unreasonable in light of the clearly established

Merring v. City of Carbondale, Pennsylvania

558 F. Supp. 2d 540 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 27, 2008

Qualified immunity does not apply where state officials violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Wright v. … If it was, the law regarding entry into a house to make an arrest is clearly established, and qualified immunity would not apply in the instant case.

Buckheit v. Dennis

713 F. Supp. 2d 910 · District Court, N.D. California · May 18, 2010

Standard Governing Qualified Immunity Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, even if a constitutional violation occurred, governmental officials are immune if their conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory … Where a plaintiff asserts a Fourth Amendment violation based on the absence of probable cause, the relevant inquiry with respect to the “clearly established” prong of the qualified immunity analysis is “whether a ‘reasonable

Scott v. City of Columbus, Unpublished Decision (3-30-2001)

Ohio Court of Appeals · Mar 30, 2001

of clearly established law and the information that he possessed. … defendant's conduct did indeed violate clearly established rights).

Alamo Workforce Development, Inc. v. Vann

21 S.W.3d 428 · Texas Court of Appeals, 4th District (San Antonio) · May 2, 2000

Clearly this statutorily-defined structure establishes that work *433 force boards act as arms of the State and carry out the policies established by the Texas Workforce Commission. … This evidence is consistent with statutory provisions which establish service delivery areas for qualifying localities. See 29 U.S.C.A. § 1511 (West 1999).

Mascorro v. Billings

656 F.3d 1198 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Aug 31, 2011

An appeal is proper if the defendant sets off to show that the law was not clearly established at the time of the challenged action, or that qualified immunity is proper even under the plaintiff's version … To defeat the officers’ claim of qualified immunity, the Mascorros must show (1) the officers violated their constitutional or statutory rights, and (2) the violated rights were clearly established at the time of the events

Blount-Yeye

District Court, S.D. Florida · Nov 12, 2025

Plaintiff can show qualified immunity is not appropriate by establishing “(1) the defendants violated a constitutional right, and (2) this right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation.” … “Generally speaking, it is proper to grant a motion to dismiss on qualified immunity grounds when the complaint fails to allege the violation of a clearly established constitutional right.” Corbitt v.

Herbert L. Board v. Karl Farnham, Jr.

394 F.3d 469 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jan 5, 2005

The Boards also claim that the constitutional right to oral hygiene supplies was clearly established at the time of the alleged violations, which would preclude a holding that the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity … to qualified immunity on this claim.

England v. Hendricks

880 F.2d 281 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jul 21, 1989

On the facts before us, then, Hendricks and Groll would be entitled to qualified immunity if it was not clearly established under Utah law at the time of their actions that a store owner could not be charged under the aiding … Since the decision to charge did not violate clearly established law at the time of the officers’ actions, they are immune from suit.

Furtado v. Yun Chung Law

51 So. 3d 1269 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Feb 2, 2011

“Qualified immunity shields government officials from liability for civil damages for torts committed while performing discretionary duties unless their conduct violates a clearly established statutory or constitutional right … Just as Justice Kennedy discussed qualified immunity with regard to section 1983 claims in Saucier, qualified immunity in a state claim is also an issue the trial court should address as soon as possible because the trial

Jayne Swinford v. Joshua Santos

121 F.4th 179 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Nov 4, 2024

We now assess whether this video footage established that the officers were entitled to qualified immunity. 10 10 Mrs. … immunity, and we end our qualified immunity analysis.

Gant v. United States Probation Office

994 F. Supp. 729 · District Court, S.D. West Virginia · Feb 13, 1998

In contrast to absolute immunity, qualified immunity shields a government official from liability for civil monetary damages if the official’s conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights … First, the court finds that Gant has failed to allege the violation of a clearly" established right.