Case law

Malik Muntaqim, Adc 088633 v. Wendy Kelley, Director, Arkansas Department of Correction

641 S.W.3d 35 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Feb 16, 2022

conduct violated that clearly established right. … Otherwise, a state official is immune from individual-capacity suits if his or her actions did not violate clearly established principles of law of which a reasonable person would have knowledge.

Tennyson v. Children's Services Division

308 Or. 80 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jun 13, 1989

Under section 1983, there are two types of immunity: qualified and absolute. 3 Qualified immunity is the norm for executive officials. Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 US 800, 807 , 102 S Ct 2727 , 73 L Ed 2d 396 (1982). … It protects conduct that “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. Fitzgerald, supra, 457 US at 818 ; see also Anderson v.

Clouse Ex Rel. Clouse v. State

199 Ariz. 196 · Arizona Supreme Court · Feb 1, 2001

We also invited the legislature to address those areas that might need the protection of absolute immunity or qualified immunity. … ’s failure to re *204 tain an arrested person in custody involves clearly governmental activity.

Corrigan v. District of Columbia

254 F. Supp. 3d 184 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 8, 2017

established right had occurred and that the officers were entitled to qualified immunity. … Consequently, whether qualified immunity applies “‘generally turns on the objective legal reasonableness of the [official's] action, assessed in light of the legal rules that were clearly established at the time.’”

Powell v. Basham

921 F.2d 165 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Dec 11, 1990

On the First Amendment claim, defendants argued, inter alia, that they were entitled to qualified immunity because Powell’s First Amendment right to criticize the promotion system and practices had not been clearly established … Qualified immunity shields a public official from personal liability for constitutional violations “if his conduct was objectively reasonable as measured by clearly established law.” Darnell v.

Larry E. Yowell v. Jerry P. Combs Andy Dalton Jay Henges John Powell Jerry J. Presley David Hurlbut

89 F.3d 542 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Aug 14, 1996

On appeal, Yowell contends the officials are not entitled to qualified immunity because his right to continued employment with the Department was so clearly established at the time of his demotion that the officials must … Qualified immunity shields government officials from suit unless their conduct violated a clearly established constitutional or statutory right of which a reasonable person would have known. 3 Harlow v.

Tony Ray Coleman v. Doug Dretke, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division

409 F.3d 665 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · May 13, 2005

The dissent claims that application of Vitek to sex offender conditions cannot be clearly established under AEDPA because courts have found that the law in this area is not clearly established for purposes of qualified immunity … For qualified immunity purposes, law is clearly established if it would be clear to a reasonable official that her conduct was unlawful in the situation she confronted. Saucier v.

Barry v. Whalen

796 F. Supp. 885 · District Court, E.D. Virginia · Jun 22, 1992

Determination of a federal official’s entitlement to the protection offered by qualified immunity involves an inquiry into whether the official has violated “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … Under this standard, Barry could prove that an official has violated his rights, but the defendants could nonetheless be entitled to qualified immunity if those rights were not clearly established or if a reasonable person

Brooks v. Sevier County

279 F. Supp. 2d 954 · District Court, E.D. Tennessee · Jun 24, 2003

Qualified immunity is an affirmative defense available to government officials for discretionary acts that do not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known … Claims of qualified immunity are assessed on a fact-specific basis to ascertain whether the particular conduct of the defendant police officer infringed on a clearly established federal right of the plaintiff, and whether

Matthews Ex Rel. Matthews v. Armitage

36 F. Supp. 2d 121 · District Court, N.D. New York · Jan 25, 1999

Qualified Immunity Defendants also seek judgment as a matter of law on the ground of qualified immunity. … A public official is entitled to qualified immunity when, at the time the officer was acting, the right in question was not clearly established or, even if the right was established, it was not objectively reasonable for

Fernez v. Calabrese

760 So. 2d 1144 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Jul 7, 2000

The court pointed out that under the qualified immunity doctrine, government officials performing discretionary functions are generally shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly … If there are factual disputes, clearly they should be resolved by the trial court. [2] Rule 9.130 states a party must be denied sovereign or qualified immunity "as a matter of law," but this is not always easy to determine

Troy Baker, and Glenn Snader, as Father and Next Friend of Jesse Snader v. City of Hamilton, Ohio, and Eric Taylor

471 F.3d 601 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Dec 18, 2006

If the plaintiff establishes that a constitutional violation occurred, a court must next consider “whether the right was clearly established.” Id. … When a defendant raises a defense of qualified immunity, the plaintiff bears the burden of demonstrating that the defendant is not entitled to qualified immunity. Silberstein v.

Nibbs v. Roberts

31 V.I. 196 · District Court, Virgin Islands · Feb 8, 1995

light of clearly established law and the information the ... officer[] possessed. … Although appellant never expressly raised the defense of qualified immunity in his answer to the complaint, we nevertheless discuss generally the parameters of the defense since the trial court instructed the jury on qualified

Morrison v. Horseshoe Casino

157 N.E.3d 406 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Aug 20, 2020

Additionally, the defendant officers asserted that they are entitled to qualified immunity on the appellants’ Section 1983 claim because their conduct “did not violate a clearly established federal right which a reasonable … Plaintiff has failed to carry his burden to overcome the qualified immunity and establish the deprivation of a federally protected constitutional right.

United States v. Holcomb

132 F.4th 1118 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Mar 27, 2025

As our qualified immunity cases make clear, an officer is immune from civil suit where the plaintiff’s rights were not “clearly established” at the time of his alleged misconduct. Ballentine v. … HOLCOMB circuit[,] . . . there still might not be clearly established case law in our circuit to withstand qualified immunity.” Id.

McRae v. Tena

914 F. Supp. 363 · District Court, D. Arizona · Jan 25, 1996

Qualified Immunity The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has repeatedly held that the defense of qualified immunity is available to police officers in excessive force cases. See, e.g., Scott v. … The Supreme Court eschewed generalizing of the “clearly established right” factor.

Helms v. Gamet

828 F. Supp. 819 · District Court, D. Colorado · Aug 6, 1993

Qualified Immunity Defendants claim that Officer Garnet is entitled to qualified immunity from suit because a reasonable officer in his position could have believed his actions were lawful. … legal rules that were clearly established at the time the action was taken.

Donahue v. Gavin

280 F.3d 371 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Feb 7, 2002

B. 28 Government officials exercising discretionary functions have qualified immunity from suits seeking damages under § 1983 "insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights … violated some clearly established statutory or constitutional right.

Anne Powers v. John T. Lightner, D/B/A Lightner Auto Sales, Third-Party Plaintiff v. Barry Jones and Bruce White, Third-Party

820 F.2d 818 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Aug 3, 1987

I consider here only the issue of qualified immunity. I. … Qualified immunity shields 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 would have known

Sparks v. Kim

701 So. 2d 1113 · Mississippi Supreme Court · Nov 13, 1997

The immunity set forth in Hudson/Marshall is not absolute, but only qualified. … Panola County Bd. of Educ., 645 So.2d 883, 890-92 (Miss. 1994) (noting that Remedies Clause is not abrogated by immunities that were well established at time of Clause's adoption); Robinson v.