Case law

Smith v. Stafford

189 P.3d 1065 · Alaska Supreme Court · Aug 8, 2008

that qualified immunity is appropriate. … 42 If the allegations show a constitutional violation, courts then must determine whether the right allegedly violated was "clearly established," which occurs where the "contours of the right [are] sufficiently clear that

Michael Kingsley v. Stan Hendrickson

801 F.3d 828 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Sep 8, 2015

The defendants take a different position; in their view, the decision of the Supreme Court en- titles them to qualified immunity. … In § 1983 actions, “[q]ualified immunity shields government officials from civil damages liability unless the official violated a statutory or constitutional right that was clearly established at the time of the challenged

Demoret v. Zegarelli

451 F.3d 140 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jun 8, 2006

I Qualified Immunity 24 Qualified immunity protects government officials from civil liability when performing discretionary duties "insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … clearly established law.

Judge v. Shikellamy School District

135 F. Supp. 3d 284 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 28, 2015

In determining whether a constitutional right was clearly established, a broad and generalized, declaration that a clearly established federal right was violated is insufficient. See Anderson v. … Put another way, for the purposes of the qualified immunity analysis, a right is considered clearly established if “it would be clear to a reasonable officer, that his conduct was unlawful in the situation he confronted.”

Jon Frudden v. Kayann Pilling

877 F.3d 821 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Dec 11, 2017

Clearly Established Law We apply a two-part analysis in qualified immunity cases. Pauluk v. Savage, 836 F.3d 1117, 1121 (9th Cir. 2016). … A right is clearly established for purposes of qualified immunity only where 22 FRUDDEN V.

Doe v. Southeast Delco School District

140 F. Supp. 3d 396 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 13, 2015

Qualified immunity shields government employees sued in their personal capacities from liability unless their conduct violates “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights ... which a reasonable person would have … Qualified immunity will protect Assistant Superintendent Ryan if Plaintiffs *404 have failed to allege he violated their constitutional rights or if Plaintiffs have alleged a violation of a right that was not clearly established

Joseph Rome v. Eugene Burden, Michel Cabello, Angela Phillips, and Sareta Davis

Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin) · Oct 31, 2002

Qualified immunity is an affirmative defense. We need only reach this issue if there is a clearly established statutory or constitutional right violated. Rome has not alleged any violation of a statutory right. … Furthermore, as Rome did not establish the predicate constitutional violation, we need not reach the issue of qualified immunity.

Jensen v. Zuern

517 N.W.2d 118 · North Dakota Court of Appeals · May 31, 1994

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. … clearly established law].

King v. Thornburg

762 F. Supp. 336 · District Court, S.D. Georgia · Apr 17, 1991

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY Defendant Brown contends that even if he is not entitled to absolute immunity he is entitled to qualified immunity because his actions would have been taken within his “discretionary authority” as chief … In order to overcome a qualified immunity defense, plaintiff bears the burden of showing that “the legal norms allegedly violated by the defendant were clearly established at the time of the challenged actions or, ... the

Gale v. Thomas

759 So. 2d 1150 · Mississippi Supreme Court · Dec 9, 1999

Clearly, the City's immunity stems from the re-enactment of immunity by § 11-46-3. … Gale's argument regarding qualified immunity is misplaced. Gale seems to claim that the only manner in which Officer Thomas may receive immunity is through the application of qualified immunity.

Dunn v. City of Boynton Beach

192 F. Supp. 3d 1310 · District Court, S.D. Florida · Jun 14, 2016

A public official performing a discretionary function enjoys qualified immunity in a civil action for damages if his or her conduct “does not violate clearly established federal statutory or constitutional rights of which … Qualified immunity may be raised in a motion to dismiss. Skrtich v.

Joseph v. Kimple

343 F. Supp. 2d 1196 · District Court, S.D. Georgia · May 10, 2004

Joseph therefore can pierce Kimple’s qualified immunity defense by showing that the law was clearly established yet Kimple violated it. … As of 10/8/99 (the day Kimple swore the warrant out), it was clearly established law that a police officer would not be protected by qualified immunity if he applied for an arrest warrant where “a reasonably well-trained

Stephens v. Hamilton County Jobs & Family Services

46 F. Supp. 3d 754 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Sep 2, 2014

Qualified immunity The doctrine of qualified immunity protects “government officials performing discretionary functions ... from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … The Sixth Circuit explained further: To overcome an officer’s entitlement to qualified immunity, however, a plaintiff must establish: (1) a substantial showing that the defendant stated a deliberate falsehood or showed reckless

Clayton Franklin v. Franklin County, Arkansas

956 F.3d 1060 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Apr 24, 2020

The Griffiths are entitled to qualified immunity on their federal claim if their conduct did not violate clearly established constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would know. See White v. Pauly, 137 S. … Broadly defined rights by themselves do not create clearly established law outside an "obvious case," see Kisela v. Hughes, 138 S.

Hyman v. Morris

320 F. Supp. 3d 707 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 14, 2018

applicable standard for ascertaining whether a right was "clearly established" for the purposes of evaluating qualified immunity: "A Government official's conduct violates clearly established law when, at the time of the … establish a right for purposes of qualified immunity."

Parrish v. Ball

594 F.3d 993 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Feb 10, 2010

Qualified immunity shields government officials from liability in their individual capacity so long as the official has not violated “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would … was clearly established at the time of the deprivation.”

Moschetti v. Office of the Inspector General

District Court, E.D. Virginia · Nov 26, 2024

Even if the Pickering factors weighed more in Moschetti’s favor, Westfall would be entitled to qualified immunity because it is not clearly established that the factors would favor an employee over an organization akin … See Brickey, 828 F.3d at 304 (holding qualified immunity was warranted when balancing of the employee’s and employer’s interests were not clearly established). 16 a substantial factor

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.

Young v. Lacy

District Court, S.D. West Virginia · Sep 28, 2018

See Pearson, 555 U.S. at 243 (holding that “petitioners [were] entitled to qualified immunity because [they] . . . did not violate clearly established law.”). … establish, it is unnecessary for this court to analyze this portion of the qualified immunity inquiry.

Kaplan v. Pointer

501 A.2d 1269 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Dec 18, 1985

. at 2701 (absolute immunity deemed “a functionally mandated incident of the President’s unique office”), while Harlow held that a presidential aide was entitled only to a qualified immunity, 457 U.S. at 809-14, 102 S.Ct. … Forsyth, — U.S.-, 105 S.Ct. 2806 , 86 L.Ed.2d 411 (1985) (granting former Attorney General of the United States qualified rather than absolute immunity from suit for damages arising out of allegedly unconstitutional conduct