Case law

Becerra v. Unified Government of Wyandotte County/Kansas City

272 F. Supp. 2d 1223 · District Court, D. Kansas · Jul 25, 2003

immunity’ Defendant Mots argues that he is entitled to qualified immunity because his conduct violated no clearly established right of Plaintiffs. … Qualified immunity shields an individual government official performing discretionary functions from liability for civil damages insofar as his conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights

Kanae v. Hodson

294 F. Supp. 2d 1179 · District Court, D. Hawaii · Nov 5, 2003

Hodson’s Qualified Immunity Defense. Hodson argues that he has qualified immunity with respect to Kanae’s claims. … Qualified immunity bars claims against government officials in their individual capacities if their conduct did not “violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known

McCollum v. Garrett

880 S.W.2d 530 · Kentucky Supreme Court · Sep 1, 1994

During the time in which McCollum essentially acted as an investigator, the protection available to him was qualified immunity. … . -, 113 S.Ct. 2606 , 125 L.Ed.2d 209 (1993), as follows: ... government officials are not subject to damages liability for the performance of their discretionary functions when "their conduct does not violate clearly established

Grace Ray v. E. J. Foltz

370 F.3d 1079 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · May 24, 2004

II The Qualified Immunity Defense When government officials act in a way that knowingly violates a clearly established statutory or constitutional right of which a reasonable person would have known, they are … We call this defense “qualified immunity” because the official is immune from a damage lawsuit, qualified upon his ability to show that he did not knowingly violate the plaintiff*s clearly established constitutional right

Walter v. County of San Diego

District Court, S.D. California · Nov 30, 2020

A public official is entitled to qualified immunity “unless the official’s 12 conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right. [Citation omitted.]” Id. at 232. 13 In Saucier v. … Because the law was clearly 7 established, Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity on this claim. 8 9 D.

Matthews v. ALABAMA AGR. AND MECHANICAL UNIV.

787 So. 2d 691 · Supreme Court of Alabama · May 26, 2000

Matthews alleges that the university employees violated "clearly established Constitutional and statutory rights," that they "exceed[ed] the scope of their statutory and administrative authority," and that they acted willfully … or to qualified/substantive/ discretionary-function immunity.

Ober v. Evanko

80 F. App'x 196 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Oct 21, 2003

The District Court denied Appellants’ motion, finding that Appellants violated Ober’s clearly established First Amendment rights and, thus, were not entitled to qualified immunity. … Qualified immunity shields “government officials performing discretionary functions ... from liability from civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of

Harvey Pelfrey v. The Estate of Steven Dewey McDowell, by and Through Brenda Roberts, as Administratrix

Court of Appeals of Kentucky · May 29, 2026

Mattingly defended in part based on qualified official immunity. … As such, Mattingly was not entitled to qualified official immunity.

Perez v. School Board

917 F. Supp. 2d 1261 · District Court, S.D. Florida · Jan 17, 2013

Furthermore, because the Defendants have raised qualified immunity as a defense, Plaintiff must allege that the officers violated a clearly-established right. Williams, 102 F.3d at 1182 . … When qualified immunity is raised, Plaintiff must plead facts showing that, at the time of the beating the law clearly established that the force used by the officers was excessive.

Daniel Scott v. Mary Benson

742 F.3d 335 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Feb 4, 2014

To determine whether qualified immunity applies, we ask “(1) whether the facts alleged or shown, construed in the light most favorable to [Scott], establish a violation of a constitutional or statutory right,” and “(2) whether … that constitutional right was clearly established as of [the time of the relevant conduct], such that a reasonable official would have known that [her] actions were unlawful.”

Prue v. City of Syracuse

26 F.3d 14 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jun 6, 1994

The doctrine of qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions from liability for civil damages “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … To establish qualified immunity, defendants must show either that their conduct “did not violate ‘clearly established rights’ of which a reasonable person would have known, or that it was ‘objectively reasonable’ to believe

Boswell v. County of Sherburne

849 F.2d 1117 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jun 21, 1988

were clearly established at the time of the challenged actions * * Mitchell v. … This court has in the past taken a broad view of what constitutes “clearly established law” for the purposes of a qualified immunity inquiry, requiring some but not precise factual correspondence with precedents and demanding

Steele v. Department of Corrections

215 Mich. App. 710 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Apr 29, 1996

Consequently, Stone was entitled to qualified immunity under Ross v Consumers Power Co (On Rehearing), 420 Mich 567, 592 ; 363 NW2d 641 (1984). 3 Furthermore, plaintiff’s claim under 42 USC 1983 fails because he has *717 … not established deliberate indifference on Stone’s part.

Carter v. Butts County

110 F. Supp. 3d 1325 · District Court, M.D. Georgia · Jun 2, 2015

“Qualified immunity protects government officials performing discretionary functions from suits in their individual capacities unless their conduct violates ‘clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … In wrongful arrest cases, the Eleventh Circuit has “defined the ‘clearly-established’ prong as an ‘arguable probable cause’ inquiry.” Moran v.

Pace v. Capobianco

283 F.3d 1275 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Mar 1, 2002

Qualified Immunity In the alternative, the individual defendants are due immunity. See generally Saucier v. … Qualified immunity protects government officials, in their individual capacities, from suit unless the law preexisting the defendant official’s supposedly wrongful act was already established to such a high degree that every

J. Chris Lane v. Kentucky Department of Corrections

Court of Appeals of Kentucky · Sep 19, 2025

Qualified Immunity. … first addressing the Appellees’ qualified immunity arguments.

Farnworth v. Femling

125 Idaho 283 · Idaho Supreme Court · Mar 2, 1994

State, 123 Idaho 899 , 854 P.2d 242 (1993), the Court stated a three-part test to determine whether a party as *286 serting qualified immunity is entitled to the defense: 1. Was there a clearly established law? 2. … Did the conduct of the party asserting qualified immunity violate a clearly established right of the party claiming the violation? 3. Was the conduct of the party asserting qualified immunity reasonable?

Raspberry v. Johnson

88 F. Supp. 2d 1319 · District Court, M.D. Alabama · Feb 18, 2000

Qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions from civil litigation and liability where “their conduct does not violate clearly established ... constitutional rights of which a reasonable … allegedly violated right was clearly established when the allegedly wrongful acts occurred.”

Eastwood v. Department of Corrections of Oklahoma

846 F.2d 627 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · May 12, 1988

Lovelace in his individual capacity survives the qualified immunity defense because plaintiff has established that Mr. Lovelace knew or should have known about plaintiff’s clearly established right of privacy. … To determine the applicability of a qualified immunity defense, an appellate court must examine if the official conduct at issue “violatefd] clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person

Franz v. Lytle

997 F.2d 784 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jun 29, 1993

Finding no relevant, clearly established legal norm on the issue evidenced by the split in the Circuits, the court affirmed the grant of qualified immunity. … At the time of defendant’s actions, the law was clearly established that the information the officer possessed rendered the present war-rantless searches objectively unreasonable barring his claim of qualified immunity so