Case law

Michalik v. Hermann

422 F.3d 252 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Aug 18, 2005

Evaluating qualified immunity is a two-step process. First, we determine whether the plaintiff has alleged a violation of a clearly established constitutional or statutory right. See Siegert v. … An officer need only plead his good faith, which then shifts the burden to the plaintiff, who must rebut the defense by establishing that the officer’s allegedly wrongful conduct violated clearly established law. Id.

Palmieri v. Clark County

2015 NV 102 · Nevada Supreme Court · Dec 31, 2015

Ct. 305, 308 (2015) ("The doctrine of qualified immunity shields officials from civil liability so long as their conduct does not violate clearly established .. … A searching officer is entitled to qualified immunity if "a reasonable officer could have believed" that the search was lawful "in light of clearly established law and the information

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).

Kim Brown v. Muhlenberg Township

269 F.3d 205 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Oct 11, 2001

IV. 65 Let me amplify my earlier analysis explaining the second prong -- the clearly established prong-- of the qualified immunity doctrine. … the clearly established element of the immunity doctrine.

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.

Clark v. Valletta

Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Oct 6, 2025

“Qualified immunity is no immunity at all if ‘clearly established’ law can simply be defined as the right to be free from” a given constitutional injury. Id. … CONCLUSION In sum, the district court improperly denied qualified immunity to Defendants because there is no clearly established right to specific gender-dysphoria treatments.

Chambers v. North Rockland Central School District

815 F. Supp. 2d 753 · District Court, S.D. New York · Sep 27, 2011

by qualified immunity.” … “[E]ven where the law is ‘clearly established’ and the scope of an official’s permissible conduct is ‘clearly defined,’ the qualified immunity defense also protects an official if it was ‘objectively reasonable’ for him at

Smith v. Bunkley

171 A.3d 1118 · Superior Court of Delaware · Aug 3, 2016

to establish jurisdiction necessary to survive a motion to dismiss.18 Therefore, the “[p]laintiff bears the burden of establishing that sovereign immunity has been abrogated.”19 For example, in Pauley et al v. … The State Tort Claims Act provides a qualified immunity to state employees, only in their individual capacities, exempting them from liability.22 The defense of qualified immunity may be raised when: “(1) the alleged act

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

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.

A.M. ex rel. Youngers v. New Mexico Department of Health

65 F. Supp. 3d 1206 · District Court, D. New Mexico · Dec 5, 2014

established prong of the qualified immunity analysis. … Clearly Established Rights in the Qualified Immunity Analysis.

Bradley v. West Chester University of the Pennsylvania State System of Higher Education

226 F. Supp. 3d 435 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 8, 2017

Therefore, a plaintiff can only overcome the qualified immunity defense by showing “the officer’s conduct [to have] violated a constitutional right,” which right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation … In sum, we find that Mixner is entitled to qualified immunity on Plaintiffs Section 1983 claim because, at the time it occurred, Mixner’s conduct did not violate a clearly established federal right. y.

Vacha v. City of North Ridgeville

136 Ohio St. 3d 199 · Ohio Supreme Court · Jul 17, 2013

The court held that because an intentional tort may arise out of the employment relationship between a political subdivision and its employee, North Ridgeville did not establish that it was entitled to immunity as a matter … The court of appeals simply held that North Ridgeville did not establish entitlement to immunity as a matter of law. Id. at ¶ 23.

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

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.

Hicks v. Phipps

765 F. Supp. 1541 · District Court, W.D. Virginia · Feb 5, 1990

Public officials have qualified immunity under the rule of Harlow v. … Therefore, Vanover is entitled to qualified immunity from Mrs. Hicks’ claim for civil damages.

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.

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 .

Shaylene Montoya v. City of Flandreau

669 F.3d 867 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Feb 23, 2012

“Qualified immunity shields government officials from liability in a § 1983 action unless the official’s conduct violates a clearly established constitutional or statutory right of which a reasonable person would have known … We further conclude the constitutional right Officer Hooper allegedly violated was clearly established at the time of the misconduct, as required by the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis.

Antoine Jones v. Steve Kirchner

835 F.3d 74 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Aug 26, 2016

Qualified immunity depends upon the answers to two questions: (1) Did the officer’s conduct violate a constitutional or statutory right? If so, (2) was that right clearly established at the time of the violation? … Nevertheless, we agree with the district court that the Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity, albeit for a different reason: It was not clearly established in Maryland in 2005 that the Fourth Amendment prohibits