at 396 , 109 S.Ct. at 1872 . 5 Many courts have found the law prohibiting excessive force to be clearly established *915 for qualified immunity purposes. See, e.g., Street v.

In Anderson , however, the Court extended the reach of qualified immunity by holding that even if the law was clearly established at the time the officer acted, the officer should be permitted to argue on summary judgment that

by the defendant, the defendant's actions violated clearly established law and are therefore not within the scope of the qualified immunity.

The district court concluded that Stone was not a political appointee and that her dismissal violated her “clearly established right to freedom of association,” thus defeating the defense of qualified immunity.

Did the district court err in holding that the law supporting appellants’ claim was sufficiently clearly established to defeat qualified immunity? II.

Once the official asserts qualified immunity, the plaintiff “must do more than identify in the abstract a clearly established right and allege that the defendant has violated it.” Pueblo Neighborhood Health Ctrs. v.

Normally, evaluating a claim of qualified immunity involves two inquiries: (1) “whether the plaintiff has alleged the violation of a clearly established constitutional right”; and (2) whether an officer could reasonably have believed

In Mitchell , the United States Supreme Court stated: Unless the plaintiff's allegations state a claim of violation of clearly established law, a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal before the commencement

Based on this language, appellant argues that review of a motion for summary judgment based on qualified immunity may involve either of two issues: (1) does the plaintiff's complaint allege a violation of clearly established law?

State officials are entitled to qualified immunity when “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v.

“The test for qualified immunity at the summary judgment stage is an objective one.” Johnson v. Hay, 931 F.2d 456, 460 (8th Cir.1991).

Unless the plaintiffs allegations state a claim of violation of clearly established law, a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal before commencement of discovery. Mitchell v.

Qualified immunity is available if the officer did “not violate clearly established stat *39 utory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v.

Simply stated, if the law the officer allegedly violated was “clearly established” there would exist no immunity, but, if not, qualified immunity would be available. Harlow, 457 U.S. at 819 , 102 S.Ct. at 2738-39 .

Alleging violation of a generalized right, even though “clearly established,” would “convert the rule of qualified immunity * * * into a rule of virtually unqualified liability simply by alleging violation of extremely abstract rights

Qualified immunity shields government officials from civil liability if “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v.

not clearly established.

To avoid application of qualified immunity, the law regarding Mornson’s right to be free from the unreasonable use of force must have been clearly established at the time of the pursuit.

State officials are entitled to qualified immunity when “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v.

Where officers of reasonable competence would disagree on the issue, qualified immunity should apply. Id. at 345 , 106 S.Ct. at 1098 . “The test for qualified immunity at the summary judgment stage is an objective one.”

Unless the plaintiffs allegations state a claim of violation of clearly established law, a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal before commencement of discovery. Mitchell v.

Because the right was not “clearly established” on that date; and since the federal doctrine of qualified immunity was applicable, see Finch v. Wemlinger, 310 N.W.2d 66, 70 (1981); under Harlow v.

Qualified immunity shields certain public officials from liability in actions *868 brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1982).

Therefore, the trial court correctly held respondents had a qualified immunity protecting against liability for damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 .

qualified immunity.

violate appellants’ right to equal protection; therefore, they are entitled to qualified immunity.

The “clearly established right” required under Harlow must be more particularized than, as in this case, the right to be free from racial discrimination. See Anderson v.

Morris, 453 N.W.2d 31, 40 (Minn.1990) (issue of qualified immunity is appropriately resolved on summary judgment); Reuter v.

City of New Hope, 449 N.W.2d 745, 749 (Minn.App.1990) (summary judgment is the most appropriate means for addressing issue of qualified immunity), pet. for rev. denied (Minn. Feb. 28, 1990).

Whether qualified immunity exists turns on whether the officials violated clearly-established statutory or constitutional rights, the existence of which a reasonable person would have known. Elwood, 423 N.W.2d at 674-75 .

Qualified Immunity Appellant challenges the district court’s determination that appellant’s section 1983 liberty- and property-interest counts could not proceed against Maturi because he is entitled to qualified immunity.

Qualified immunity protects “government officials performing discretionary functions ... from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable

Maturi, as a government official, receives the protections of qualified immunity when performing dis *655 cretionary functions unless he could reasonably be expected to recognize that his conduct would violate clearly established

at 818 , 102 S.Ct. at 2738 . 1 See generally, Note, Qualified Immunity for Government Officials: The Problem of Unconstitutional Purpose in Civil Rights Litigation, 95 Yale L.J. 126 (1985).

The court of appeals found the officers were not entitled to qualified immunity because plaintiffs’ rights under the Fourth Amendment were clearly established at the time of the incident. Creighton v. City of St.

immunity principles.”

immunity grounds if they can show plaintiff's Eighth Amendment right to be free from the "cruel and unusual" conditions was not clearly established during the time he was incarcerated); Bogard, 586 F.2d at 409 (problem of qualified

Whether qualified immunity exists turns on whether the official violated a clearly established statutory or constitutional right, the existence of which a reasonable person would have known. Id. at 674-75.

Id. at 957-58 . [1] *755 Public officials are entitled to the affirmative defense of qualified immunity unless "the officials' conduct violated `clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person

A governmental official performing discretionary functions is entitled to qualified immunity if the official’s conduct does not violate clearly established constitutional or statutory rights that a reasonable person would have known

A police officer is denied qualified immunity only where “it is obvious that no reasonably competent police officer would have concluded” that his actions were legal. Medley, 475 U.S. at 342, 106 S.Ct. at 1096.

Evaluating a claim of qualified immunity involves two inquiries: (1) “whether the plaintiff has alleged the violation of a clearly established constitutional right”; and (2) whether an officer could reasonably have believed his actions

Although the right to be free from unreasonable seizures is a clearly established right, the Supreme Court of the United States has said that a general constitutional violation alone does not dissolve the qualified immunity.

DECISION Officers Erickson and Campbell are entitled to qualified immunity as a matter of law against the Reuters’ section 1983 claims.

The Reuters failed to present evidence that the officers violated a clearly established law or acted in an objectively unreasonable manner.

Under this objective standard, officials are entitled to qualified immunity when “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Id.

Qualified immunity is denied only when “it is obvious that no reasonably competent officer would have concluded” that the defendant’s actions were legal. Malley v.

ISSUE Did the trial court err in failing to apply an objective standard to appellants’ claim of qualified immunity pursuant to Harlow v. Fitzgerald? DISCUSSION Under the standard set forth in Harlow v.

Whether the law was clearly established is a threshold question; if the trial court finds the law was not clearly established when the conduct occurred, “the inquiry ceases” and “the official is entitled to summary judgment as a matter

The scope of the qualified immunity doctrine is broad: As the qualified immunity defense has evolved, it provides ample protection to all but the plainly incompetent or those who knowingly violate the law. Malley v.

"It is clearly established that a State may not discharge an employee on a basis that infringes that employee’s constitutionally protected interest in freedom of speech.” Rankin v.

For purposes of qualified immunity, “[t]he contours of the right must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what [she or] he is doing violates that right.” Anderson v.

immunity.

First Amendment Claims The federal standard of qualified immunity applies in actions under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 brought in Minnesota courts. *717 Finch v. Wemlinger, 310 N.W.2d 66, 70 (Minn.1981).

Balancing these interests in the context of qualified immunity moves the fulcrum on which the decision turns.

To penetrate the government officials’ qualified immunity, the balance must be in favor of the employee to a degree that evidences a clearly established right.

that were ‘clearly established’ at the time it was taken.”

The scope of the qualified immunity doctrine is broad. McIntire v. State, 419 N.W.2d 799, 802 (Minn.App.1988), pet. for rev. denied (Minn. Apr. 20, 1988).

If the allegedly violated law is a clearly established one, however, the immunity defense ordinarily will fail, since a reasonably competent public official should know the law governing his or her conduct.