Case law

Manuel v. Gill

270 Mich. App. 355 · Michigan Court of Appeals · May 24, 2006

The trial court further determined that because none of the alleged conduct by the individuals amounted to a violation of a clearly established constitutional right, defendants were entitled to qualified immunity. … established,” for purposes of qualified immunity, the federal court stated, “Taylor is not and never was entitled to qualified immunity against this claim.” 46 Whether a confidential informant may bring an action under §

Gionis v. Headwest, Inc.

799 So. 2d 416 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Nov 16, 2001

Gionis subsequently filed a motion for summary judgment as to Count VIII, on the basis that he was immune from suit under the doctrine of qualified immunity. … Once it is established that the acts in question were discretionary governmental functions, the second element requires the plaintiff to demonstrate that the government official violated the plaintiffs clearly established

White v. State

78 Wash. App. 824 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Jul 12, 1995

Qualified Immunity Defense The State argues that if White engaged in protected speech, Blanchard and Harrah are immune from liability under the defense of qualified immunity. … Once the affirmative defense of qualified immunity has been raised in a case on summary judgment, the plaintiff bears the burden of demonstrating the existence of the alleged "clearly established” constitutional right.

Hollihan v. Pennsylvania Department of Corrections

159 F. Supp. 3d 502 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 20, 2016

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity protects a state actor who has committed constitutional violations if the plaintiffs rights were not clearly established when the indi *513 vidual acted. Pearson v. … The burden to establish qualified immunity rests with the defendant. Beers-Capitol, 256 F.3d at 142 n. 15.

Raju v. Rhodes

809 F. Supp. 1229 · District Court, S.D. Mississippi · Nov 20, 1992

Consequently, in assessing defendant’s right to qualified immunity, the court must determine “whether any of these claims rests upon such clearly established law that the defendant^ ha[s] forfeited [his] qualified immunity … Raju cannot establish, in order to overcome Dr. Rhodes’ qualified immunity, the violation of a clearly established constitutional right in regard to his substantive due process claim. C.

Cullen Reed Peppers v. Bobby F. Coates, Jr., Buster Williams

887 F.2d 1493 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Nov 13, 1989

immunity, defendant must establish that plaintiff has failed to raise a genuine issue of fact material to the qualified immunity defense. 7 In Mitchell , *1497 the Court stated that in resolving a claim for qualified immunity … ’s commission of acts in violation of plaintiff’s clearly established rights.

Dean Birkeland v. John Jorgenson

971 F.3d 787 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Aug 20, 2020

and killed him–our precedent compels the conclusion that the officers’ use of deadly force in this situation was not a violation of a clearly established right. … established right.”

Airday v. The City Of New York

District Court, S.D. New York · Sep 13, 2019

Qualified immunity shields a government official from money damages when his conduct did “not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … A defendant has qualified immunity from a due-process claim when it was not clearly established at the time of the alleged deprivation that the purported property or liberty interest of which the plaintiff was deprived

Whitney Hodges v. City of Grand Rapids, Mich.

139 F.4th 495 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · May 30, 2025

As we will explain, the complaint here does not establish the defense of qualified immunity because Hodges has alleged facts making plausible the inference that the officers violated Honestie’s clearly established Fourth … Qualified Immunity Having determined the proper scope of the record on appeal, we must now determine whether Hodges has plausibly alleged that the officers violated Honestie’s clearly established rights.

Richard

District Court, D. Connecticut · Dec 31, 2025

immunity. … Hollins, 297 F.3d 108, 113 n.1 (2d Cir. 2002) (Once a court “decide[s] that there is no constitutional violation, there typically is no need to address whether defendants are also protected by qualified immunity.”).

Arlene Martin v. Dana Marriner, Arlene Martin v. Dana Marriner

904 F.2d 120 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Jun 8, 1990

Nonetheless, it held that the FmHA officials were entitled to qualified immunity. 825 F.2d at 1553-54 . … Culbreath, 799 F.2d at 1250 (right to notice of an alternative proceeding to an FmHA liquidation not clearly established).

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).

Marshall v. Russell

391 F. Supp. 3d 672 · District Court, S.D. Texas · Sep 20, 2018

Russell alleged he is entitled to qualified immunity because he did not violate any clearly established constitutional right. ECF No. 55 at 32-34. Sgt. … Qualified immunity.

Stevens v. Sanpete County

640 F. Supp. 376 · District Court, D. Utah · Jan 9, 1986

Reading Harlow literally, it has said that the proper inquiry for determining qualified immunity is simply whether the constitution’s probable cause requirement was clearly established. … Since the probable cause requirement is clearly established, one who makes an arrest without probable cause can never have qualified immunity.

Wilkinson v. Balsam

885 F. Supp. 651 · District Court, D. Vermont · Apr 17, 1995

Thus, as under federal qualified immunity, [g]ood faith exists where an official’s acts did not violate clearly established rights of which the official reasonably should have known. … For purposes of state law qualified immunity, however, the “clearly established rights” need not be federal constitutional or statutory rights, as required in the application of the federal qualified immunity defense; to

Wilkins v. City of Tulsa

33 F.4th 1265 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · May 3, 2022

The officers invoked qualified immunity, arguing they did not violate Mr. Wilkins’s Fourth Amendment rights and that his rights were not clearly established. … Wilkins’s clearly established right to be free from the additional use of force after he was effectively subdued. The officers were not entitled to qualified immunity.

Mincieli v. Bruder

914 F. Supp. 512 · District Court, S.D. Florida · Mar 7, 1994

Mineieli can meet this burden by demonstrating that Bruder’s actions violated clearly established constitutional law. Lowe v. Aldridge, 958 F.2d 1565, 1570 (11th Cir.1992). … than on qualified immunity. 6 .

Ruiz v. Texas Department of Protective & Regulatory Services

984 F. Supp. 2d 657 · District Court, S.D. Texas · Oct 28, 2013

However, as detailed below, that right is insufficient to sustain this action when juxtaposed against the qualified immunity “clearly established law” requirement. … immunity, based on a claim that the right to family integrity was not clearly established, will fail.

Dull v. West Manchester Township Police Department

604 F. Supp. 2d 739 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 31, 2009

Haines, and Bixler are entitled to qualified immunity. … To determine whether a police officer enjoys qualified immunity, the court must ascertain whether the officer violated “clearly established statutory or constitu *752 tional rights of which a reasonable person would have

Opinion No.

Arkansas Attorney General Reports · Apr 10, 2001

The test for the applicability of qualified immunity turns upon the "objective legal reasonableness of the action," assessed in light of legal rules that were "clearly established" at the time the action was taken. … The immunity is "qualified" because it does not obtain where the activity is in violation of clearly established law that a reasonable person would have known. Robinson v.