Case law

Baker v. Taylor

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.

Nicholas v. Tucker

40 F. App'x 642 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jul 24, 2002

The court then asked for further briefing on the issue of qualified immunity. … a weapon or other contraband and that interference with the headgear would thus not violate his clearly established constitutional rights.

Michael Hester v. Chester Cnty., Tenn.

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Dec 19, 2025

Qualified Immunity Weaver, Griffin, and Stout assert 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

St. John v. Hickey

411 F.3d 762 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 20, 2005

John suggest the violation of a clearly established right such that Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity. Finally, we conclude that, as to his official capacity claim, St. … Consequently, the defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity on St.

Rexford Kipps, Carol Kipps and Kyle Kipps v. James Caillier, Ray Authement, Nelson J. Schexnayder, Jr. And Nelson Stokley

205 F.3d 203 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Mar 1, 2000

An issue was raised with respect to the panel majority’s qualified immunity analysis. … familial association does, in fact, exist and was clearly established at the time Kipps was fired.

McGhee v. Pottawattamie County, Iowa

547 F.3d 922 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Nov 21, 2008

The district court found some defendants were entitled to qualified immunity on certain claims and denied qualified immunity and absolute immunity on the remaining claims. … Absolute Immunity and Probable Cause Before the establishment of probable cause to arrest, a prosecutor generally will not be entitled to absolute immunity. See Buckley v.

Souza v. Pina

Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Apr 28, 1995

Qualified immunity shields state officials exercising discretionary authority from civil damages "insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … Because Souza has failed to establish that appellants' acts transgressed a clearly established right, we conclude that defendants may invoke the defense of qualified immunity. III.

McKinney v. Washington

297 F. App'x 593 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Oct 16, 2008

Katz, 533 U.S. 194 , 121 S.Ct. 2151 , 150 L.Ed.2d 272 (2001), we apply a two-part test to determine if qualified immunity shields a defendant from liability. … And second, if the officer’s conduct did deprive plaintiff of a constitutional right, the court analyzes whether “the right was clearly established.” Id.

James L. Pouillon v. City of Owosso Sergeant Sharon Little and Officer W. G. Blanchett

206 F.3d 711 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Mar 16, 2000

. § 1983 , for violating his clearly established constitutional rights to freedom of speech, religion, and assembly by arresting him for protesting abortion while standing with a sign in front of city hall. … In analyzing qualified immunity claims “[w]e conduct de novo review because the issue whether qualified immunity is applicable to an officer’s actions is a matter of law.” Dickerson v.

Elder v. Holloway

984 F.2d 991 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jan 27, 1993

Harlow shifted the inquiry in qualified immunity cases from the subjective good faith of the government officials to the objective reasonableness of their conduct in light of clearly established law. … The Court is merely restating its holding by emphasizing that to defeat a qualified immunity claim there must be an identity between the sued-on right and the clearly established right.

Luna v. Davis

59 F.4th 713 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Feb 6, 2023

A qualified immunity defense alters the typical summary judgment burden of proof. Brown v. Callahan, 623 F.3d 249, 253 (5th Cir. 2010). … The defense has two prongs, both of which must be rebutted to overcome qualified immunity: “whether an official’s conduct violated a constitutional right of the plaintiff; and whether the right was clearly established

Virgil Vaduva v. City of Xenia

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 7, 2019

And second, “is the right clearly established?” Id. (quotation omitted). … Hickman County, 700 F.3d 845, 853 (6th Cir. 2013) (“The doctrine [of qualified immunity] focuses on ‘the objective reasonableness of an official’s conduct, as measured by reference to clearly established law’ . . . .”).

Rolon v. Ward

345 F. App'x 608 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Sep 4, 2009

because the law was not clearly established or because, on the facts assumed for the purposes of appeal, the defendants’ conduct did not constitute a violation of a constitutional right.” … Accepting the facts as set forth by Rolon— as we must on a motion for summary judgment — -it cannot be said that defendants are entitled to qualified immunity as a matter of law.

Turkmen v. Hasty

Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Dec 11, 2015

But it cites no case clearly establishing such a right, let alone a case clearly establishing the unlawfulness of defendants’  particular  conduct  in  light  of  the  specific  context  of  this  case.    … But qualified immunity dictates that damages actions not move forward unless the constitutional right at issue was so clearly established in the particular context of the case as to be beyond dispute.  See Plumhoff v. 

Amanda Rakes v. Jonathan Roederer

Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Sep 25, 2024

Rakes has established a triable state-created danger claim, they are nonetheless entitled to qualified immunity. … To violate clearly established law—the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis—“existing precedent must have placed the statutory or constitutional question beyond debate.”

Amanda Rakes v. Jonathan Roederer

Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Sep 25, 2024

Rakes has established a triable state-created danger claim, they are nonetheless entitled to qualified immunity. … To violate clearly established law—the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis—“existing precedent must have placed the statutory or constitutional question beyond debate.”

Brandie McLean v. John McGinnis

Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Dec 1, 2008

In considering a motion for summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds, the court makes two inquiries. … “If so, then [the court] determine[s] whether the constitutional right was clearly established at the time.” Flowers, 478 F.3d at 872.

Dennis Tigue v. T. J. Swaim

585 F.2d 909 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Oct 20, 1978

The Second Circuit had held that the federal officials were not entitled to absolute immunity but could claim only a qualified immunity based on good faith and reasonable grounds. Economou v. U. S. … The Court, in Butz , stated that a qualified immunity from damages liability should be the general rule for executive officials charged with constitutional violations. Butz v.

Livell Figgs v. Alex Dawson

829 F.3d 895 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jul 25, 2016

“The  doctrine  of  qualified immunity protects government officials ‘from liability for civil damages  insofar  as  their  conduct  does  not  violate  clearly established  statutory  or  constitutional  rights  of  which … Thus, Fishel is not entitled to qualified immunity.

Norman R. Harrington v. R. Christopher Almy, Etc.

977 F.2d 37 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Jan 21, 1993

So long as Cole’s conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known,” Harlow v. … Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 , 102 S.Ct. 2727, 2738 , 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982), he is entitled to qualified immunity.