Case law

Griffin v. City of Clanton, Ala.

932 F. Supp. 1359 · District Court, M.D. Alabama · Jul 1, 1996

Qualified immunity protects an officer where a “reasonable officer could have believed [the arrest] to be lawful, in light of clearly established law and the information the [arresting] officers possessed.” … Because this standard establishes no bright line, qualified immunity applies unless clearly established law would inevitably lead every reasonable officer to conclude that the force used was excessive.

Estate of D.E.; D.E., individually by and through his mother, Christine Erickson; Christine Erickson, individually; and I.E., a minor, by and through her mother, Christine Erickson v. West Virginia Department of Health and Human Resources; Jeffery M. Pack; and Jennifer L. Raper, individually and in her capacity as an employee/agent of West Virginia Department of Health and Human Resources

Intermediate Court of Appeals of West Virginia · Nov 4, 2024

to a good faith report of child abuse or neglect; and both are entitled to qualified immunity because there is no allegation that they violated a clearly established 3 law … “[I]t is well- established that matters involving qualified immunity, such as the case presently before us, require a type of ‘heightened pleading’ standard.” W. Virginia Reg'l Jail & Corr. Facility Auth. v.

Dorothea Gravely v. John Madden

142 F.3d 345 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 21, 1998

He is therefore entitled to qualified immunity. … Put another way, the question of whether Madden is protected by qualified immunity turns on the objective reasonableness of his actions, assessed in light of the legal rules that were clearly established at the time they

Shepard v. Irving

204 F. Supp. 2d 902 · District Court, E.D. Virginia · Jun 5, 2002

The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials from civil damages in Section 1983 actions “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … a clearly established right of which Defendants should have known.

Trackwell v. County of Lancaster

Nebraska Court of Appeals · Oct 6, 2020

The trial court found that Kelly and Lacey had qualified immunity against Trackwell’s § 1983 claim because he did not demonstrate the deprivation of a clearly established constitutional right. … To survive a summary judgment motion based on qualified immunity grounds, a plaintiff must assert a violation of a constitutional right, show that this right is clearly established, and raise an issue of material fact as

De Smet v. Snyder

653 F. Supp. 797 · District Court, E.D. Wisconsin · Feb 12, 1987

The plaintiffs, in turn, must overcome the immunity defense by showing that their allegations, if true, did violate constitutional rights clearly established at the time. … of clearly established constitutional rights.

Dickey v. United States of America

174 F. Supp. 3d 366 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 30, 2016

However, qualified immunity protects government officials from civil liability where their conduct does not violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known … Defendants argue that “the true test for qualified immunity in this case was whether it was clearly established that Officer Alexander was prohibited from alleged touching or manipulating

Dang v. Ehredt

95 Wash. App. 670 · Court of Appeals of Washington · May 17, 1999

were lawful in light of clearly established law and the information the officer possessed. 12 The standard is one of objective legal reasonableness, that is, whether the officer acted reasonably under settled law under the … Dang’s assertion that the issue of qualified immunity merges with the issue of probable cause, so that a finding that an officer lacked probable cause to arrest is dispositive of the issue of qualified immunity. 12 Anderson

Mallas v. Kolak

721 F. Supp. 748 · District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Sep 13, 1989

of their qualified immunity. … Moreover, the court finds that officials sued for constitutional violations which are not clearly established do not lose their qualified immunity merely because their conduct also violates some statutory or administrative

Teri Dean v. Anne Precythe

79 F.4th 986 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Aug 23, 2023

The availability of qualified immunity depends on the answer to two questions. First, did Precythe violate a constitutional right? Second, was the right clearly established? See Morgan v. … Audrain County, 968 F.3d 845, 849 (8th Cir. 2020) (explaining that the plaintiff “has the burden to show that” the law is clearly established).

Marshall v. Switzer

900 F. Supp. 604 · District Court, N.D. New York · Oct 4, 1995

Accordingly, in order to establish the defense of qualified immunity, an official “must satisfy one of two tests: either that his conduct did not violate ‘clearly established’ rights of which a reasonable person would have … Absent a violation of a “clearly established” right, an official is entitled to summary judgment based upon qualified immunity. See, e.g., Richardson v. Selsky, 5 F.3d 616, 621 (2d Cir.1993).

Anna Chernyy v. Monty Roesler

Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Aug 11, 2026

We assume these facts are true, but they do not affect our finding that Moore is entitled to qualified immunity because he did not violate clearly established law. 3 Chernyy also argues that “sexual assault … Moore is similarly entitled to qualified immunity for the failure to train claim because he did not violate any clearly established right “of which a reasonable person would have known.” Parrish v.

Estiverne v. Esernio-Jenssen

833 F. Supp. 2d 356 · District Court, E.D. New York · Dec 23, 2011

Qualified immunity shields government officials from liability for constitutional violations when their “conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have … Qualified immunity A.E.’s Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable investigatory testing has been clearly established since at least Tenenbaum , in 1999.

Rivera v. Washington

298 Ga. 770 · Supreme Court of Georgia · Mar 25, 2016

The trial court denied the motion, ruling that it was possible that facts could be shown in discovery that would establish that neither quasi-judicial immunity nor sovereign immunity applied. … But, Cameron did not make such a pronouncement about qualified immunity under the laws of this state.

Beltran v. City of El Paso

367 F.3d 299 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Apr 15, 2004

In the absence of a violation of a clearly established constitutional right, Amador is entitled to qualified immunity as a matter of law. c. … of the clearly established legal rules at the time of the incident, and qualified immunity protects her from any civil liability.

Santos v. Zabbara

984 F. Supp. 2d 106 · District Court, E.D. New York · Oct 28, 2013

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity shields Defendants, as “government officials performing discretionary functions,” from liability for damages under Section 1983 “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established … “An officer conducting a search is entitled to qualified immunity where clearly established law does not show that the search violated the Fourth Amendment.” Pearson, 555 U.S. at 243-44 , 129 S.Ct. 808 .

Witt v. West Virginia State Police, Troop 2

633 F.3d 272 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Feb 4, 2011

"[Q]ualified immunity protects government officials from liability for violations of constitutional rights that were not clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct." Iko v. … That is, that the facts "viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmov- ing party," i.e., Witt, demonstrate that the troopers’ conduct violated no "clearly established" right. Winfield, 106 F.3d at 529.

Barton v. Curtis

50 V.I. 783 · District Court, Virgin Islands · Nov 25, 2008

“Qualified immunity shields state officials from suit when their conduct ‘does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’ ” Id. at 140 (quoting Harlow … the ‘constitutional issue’ and the second being ‘whether the right was clearly established.’ ” Id. at 601 .

George Mitchell v. State of Washington

818 F.3d 436 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Mar 14, 2016

Qualified Immunity — Clearly Established Despite the fact that we hold that the violation of a constitutional right occurred, Dr. … Bell is entitled to qualified immunity if it was not “clearly established” that his actions would violate Mitchell’s constitutional rights. 7 Pearson, 555 U.S. at 232 , 129 S.Ct. 808 . At the time of Dr.

Mitchell v. Cole

176 Mich. App. 200 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Apr 3, 1989

In determining if there is qualified immunity, the court considers: 1) whether the alleged conduct establishes a constitutional violation, and 2) whether the constitutional standard was clearly established at the time in … If the undisputed facts show that the defendant’s conduct violated no clearly established constitutional standards, qualified immunity applies as a matter of law.