Case law

Electric Fetus Co. v. City of Duluth

547 N.W.2d 448 · Court of Appeals of Minnesota · May 14, 1996

State officials are entitled to qualified immunity when “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. … Unless the plaintiffs allegations state a claim of violation of clearly established law, a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal before commencement of discovery. Mitchell v.

Pucci v. Nineteenth District Court

628 F.3d 752 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Dec 16, 2010

“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 of which a reasonable person … If a constitutional violation can be found, the second prong of a qualified immunity analysis examines “whether the right was clearly established” at the time of the deprivation. Saucier, 533 U.S. at 201.

Livingood v. Meece

477 N.W.2d 183 · North Dakota Supreme Court · Nov 12, 1991

Meece asserts that he is entitled to qualified immunity under the circumstances of this case. … 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.

Rita Carroll v. Fredrick W. Pfeffer

262 F.3d 847 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Aug 23, 2001

Qualified immunity is a defense available to government officials who can prove that their conduct did “not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … Next, Carroll asserts that Officer Pfeffer was not entitled to summary judgment based upon qualified immunity because he violated her clearly established constitutional right to freedom of speech by retaliating against her

Rasic v. City of Northlake

563 F. Supp. 2d 885 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jun 27, 2008

The two-part standard for qualified immunity asks whether the constitutional right allegedly violated was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation; it does not ask whether it was clearly established that the … The purpose of qualified immunity is to give public officials freedom to act — but, only so long as their actions do not violate a clearly established right.

Bernstein v. State

411 N.J. Super. 316 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jan 11, 2010

[,]" and if so, "whether the right was clearly established." … In determining whether a right has been clearly established, its contours must be sufficiently clear so that a "reasonably competent officer" would have understood that he was violating a clearly established right.

Harris County v. Michael J. Hall

Texas Court of Appeals, 1st District (Houston) · Jan 22, 2026

Governmental Immunity and Plea to the Jurisdiction Governmental units are immune from suit unless immunity is clearly and unambiguously waived by state law. City of San Antonio v. … Hall failed to establish a prima facie case of disability discrimination because he could not establish that at the time of his termination he was qualified for the job.

Hopkins v. Bonvicino

573 F.3d 752 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jul 16, 2009

If the right is not clearly established, then the officer is entitled to qualified immunity. … Because it was also clearly established that the officers’ conduct did not fall within the emergency exception, the two defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity on that basis either.

B.T. ex rel. G.T. v. Davis

557 F. Supp. 2d 1262 · District Court, D. New Mexico · Jul 31, 2007

When a defendant asserts a qualified immunity defense, the burden shifts to the plaintiff, who must establish: (I) that the defendant violated a constitutional right; and (ii) that the constitutional right violated was clearly … up the clearly-established issue.

Wallace v. Jackson

667 F. Supp. 2d 1267 · District Court, M.D. Alabama · Sep 28, 2009

On the other hand, if the law was not clearly established at the time of the offense, the defendant is entitled to qualified immunity. Id. at 807 , 102 S.Ct. 2727 ; Stewart v. … was clearly established at the time.

Iris Violeta Valiente v. Hon. Ramon Luis Rivera, Etc.

966 F.2d 21 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Jun 5, 1992

Claiming qualified immunity, defendant moved for . summary judgment. … As it was not clearly established at that time that such personnel actions, even if politically motivated, violated the constitution, defendant mayor is entitled to quali *24 fied immunity from damages liability with respect

Elder v. Holloway

975 F.2d 1388 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Sep 17, 1992

In opposition to the officers' motion for summary judgment on qualified immunity, Elder proffered three out-of-state cases to show that the law was clearly established that a warrant was required to make a "constructive entry … Supreme Court's recent approach to qualified immunity.

Rhein v. Coffman

118 F. Supp. 3d 1093 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Aug 6, 2015

Coffman also is correct that even if his post-revocation conduct violated Rhein’s due process rights, he is entitled to qualified immunity because he did not violate clearly established law. I. … clearly established law.

John Larson v. Chad Holmes

Court of Appeals of Iowa · Nov 13, 2025

Also, “[u]nder federal law, qualified immunity is not a defense to common law claims.” Id. … Doe explicitly used negligence hypotheticals as examples of claims which lack a “right, privilege, or immunity secured by law” that “was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation.”

Barbara Marks v. Wanda Hudson

933 F.3d 481 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Aug 8, 2019

They also argue they are entitled to qualified immunity because the “nebulous” rights on which the plaintiffs rely are not clearly established, nor were their actions objectively unreasonable. … Ashcroft-Smith, 922 F.3d 320, 322 n.1 (5th Cir. 2019), they cannot be the source of clearly established law for qualified immunity analysis.

Dugas v. Jefferson County

931 F. Supp. 1315 · District Court, E.D. Texas · Jun 21, 1996

Underlying Policy and Principles of Analysis The doctrine of qualified immunity affords protection against individual liability for civil damages to officials “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established … The seminal qualified immunity decision, Harlow v.

Sandra T.E. v. Grindle

599 F.3d 583 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Mar 17, 2010

Grindle moved for summary judgment, claiming she was entitled to qualified immunity because plaintiffs had failed to estab- lish a violation of a clearly established right. … If they do, we ask whether the violated right was “clearly established” at the time of alleged violation. If so, the official is not entitled to qualified immunity from suit. See Michael C. v.

Amir M. Meshal v. Commissioner, Georgia Department of Public Safety

117 F.4th 1273 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Sep 16, 2024

The officers moved to dismiss the complaint on qualified-immunity grounds, arguing that Meshal failed to allege a violation of clearly established law. … The district court’s qualified-immunity ruling should be re- versed only if the existence of the affirmative defense of qualified immunity “clearly appears on the face of the complaint.”

Culver v. Armstrong

832 F.3d 1213 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Aug 9, 2016

For our purpose, “[t]he doctrine of qualified immunity shields officials from civil liability so long as their conduct does not violate clearly established . . . … To answer the probable cause inquiry posed by the “clearly established” prong of the qualified immunity standard in this case, we need look no further than Wyoming Supreme Court cases construing Wyo. Stat.

Act Up!/Portland v. Bagley

971 F.2d 298 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jul 24, 1992

II QUALIFIED IMMUNITY We review a district court’s denial of a qualified immunity defense de novo. Baker v. Racansky, 887 F.2d 183, 185 (9th Cir.1989). … When a law enforcement officer asserts qualified immunity from liability for civil rights violations, the district court must determine whether, in light of clearly established principles governing the conduct in question