Case law

Jeff Courtright v. City of Battle Creek

839 F.3d 513 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Oct 14, 2016

Page 4 “When a defendant appeals the denial of a motion to dismiss based on qualified immunity, we review de novo whether the complaint alleges violation of a clearly established constitutional right.” … established right for purposes of qualified immunity.”

Ludwig v. Anderson

54 F.3d 465 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · May 1, 1995

Under the doctrine, of qualified immunity, government officials performing discretionary tasks are shielded from liability for civil damages unless their conduct violates “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights … This is not to say that Ludwig’s status as an emotionally disturbed person entitles him to any additional, clearly established constitutional rights which would be relevant to the qualified immunity determination.

Renee Williams v. Dean Mannis

889 F.3d 926 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · May 10, 2018

To determine whether Mannis is entitled to qualified immunity, we ask: (1) whether his conduct violated a constitutional right; and (2) whether the violated right was clearly established. Manning v. … “When a defendant asserts qualified immunity at the summary judgment stage, the plaintiff must produce evidence sufficient to create a genuine issue of fact regarding whether the defendant violated a clearly established right

Wallin v. City of Los Angeles

15 F.3d 1095 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Feb 3, 1994

However, LAPD Officers' contention that they did not violate any clearly established law at best makes the qualified immunity issue a mixed question of law and fact. 3 Because this appeal does not present a purely legal issue … An officer is entitled to qualified immunity even if "the law governing [his] conduct [was] clearly established[,]" so long as "[u]nder that law, ... a reasonable officer [could] have believed the conduct was lawful[.]"

Kennedy v. Sgt Francis

District Court, D. South Carolina · Feb 28, 2023

The Supreme Court has established a two-step analysis for qualified immunity claims. See Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194, 201 (2001). … See Hill, 727 F.3d at 322 (considering the impact of Wilkins on the clearly established law prong of qualified immunity cases).

Allen Quigley v. Tuong Thai

707 F.3d 675 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Feb 21, 2013

Merits of Thai’s qualified-immunity claim The qualified-immunity doctrine shields government officials performing discretionary functions from civil liability unless their conduct violates clearly established rights … The estate has established that Thai violated a constitutional right and that the right was clearly established. Thai is therefore not entitled to qualified immunity. D.

Robert Turner v. Al Thomas, Jr.

930 F.3d 640 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Jul 19, 2019

Qualified immunity shields state actors from liability under § 1983 liability when their “conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … Accordingly, Turner has not alleged a violation of clearly established law, and Thomas and Flaherty are entitled to qualified immunity. 2 IV.

Boggs v. Stevens

298 F. Supp. 3d 996 · District Court, E.D. Kentucky · Feb 6, 2018

a violation of a clearly established constitutional right. … Thus, where the facts shown by the plaintiff do not make out a clearly established constitutional violation, qualified immunity protects the government official from trial.

Harvey Rambo v. John Daley and William McGinnis

68 F.3d 203 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Dec 15, 1995

Defendants argue that qualified immunity should protect them because the lack of a significant injury demonstrates that the officers did not violate a clearly established constitutional right. … a violation of ‘clearly established’ law.”

Harris v. O'Hare

770 F.3d 224 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Oct 30, 2014

Qualified Immunity Defendants ask us to find that they are entitled to qualified immunity. … In determining whether the officers are entitled to qualified immunity, the key question is “whether the right in question was ‘clearly established’ at the time of the violation.” Tolan v.

Brian O'Hagan v. Hector L. Soto

725 F.2d 878 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jan 16, 1984

Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 817-19 , 102 S.Ct. 2727, 2738-2739 , 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982), a defendant is entitled to prevail when his conduct does not violate “clearly established” rights, id. at 818 , 102 S.Ct. at 2739 . … Though the Sixth Amendment right to counsel is well established, the uncertainty as to whether it had attached at the time Soto questioned O’Hagan entitles Soto to resist liability on the basis of qualified immunity. 3 For

Merritt Sharp, III v. County of Orange

871 F.3d 901 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Sep 19, 2017

In its view, the deputies violated clearly established law, thereby precluding qualified immunity, and the district court further held that the asserted state-law immunities were inapplicable as a matter of law and fact. … Qualified immunity is proper unless Plaintiffs establish that (1) the deputies committed a constitutional violation, and (2) the deputies’ specific conduct violated “clearly established” federal law.

Todd S. Floberg v. Oklahoma Department of Corrections Larry R. Meachum Larry A. Fields Denise Robinson Deborah Robison

962 F.2d 17 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Apr 14, 1992

legal rules that were 'clearly established' at the time [the action] was taken." … See Anderson, 483 U.S. at 640 (test of qualified immunity must be established in a particularized and relevant sense).

Isaac Sparks v. Ronald Stutler and Manuel Largaespada

71 F.3d 259 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Feb 12, 1996

Until the right in question has been “clearly established,” courts do not demand that public officials dig into their pockets. Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 , 102 S.Ct. 2727, 2738 , 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982). … The existence of such line-drawing problems calls for immunity; the rule should be established prospectively rather than at the expense of public employees who predict the development of the law incorrectly.

Rainsberger v. Benner

913 F.3d 640 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jan 15, 2019

Qualified immunity involves a two-pronged inquiry: (1) whether the facts, read in favor of the non-moving party, amount to a constitutional violation; and (2) whether the constitutional right was clearly established at the … But the first prong of the qualified immunity analysis is not the one designed to specially protect the officer-that comes at the second prong, which limits the officer's liability to violations of clearly established law

Anthony Novak v. City of Parma

932 F.3d 421 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 29, 2019

Page 5 Officers Riley and Connor are entitled to qualified immunity “unless (1) they violated a federal statutory or constitutional right, and (2) the unlawfulness of their conduct was clearly established at the … They do not bear on the qualified immunity analysis above because, as with most interesting legal issues, the law is not clearly established. Issue 1.

Johnson v. Clafton

136 F. Supp. 3d 838 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Sep 30, 2015

Indeed, once a defendant raises qualified immunity, it is the § 1983 plaintiffs burden to show that the constitutional right was clearly established when the defendant acted. Webb, 789 F.3d at 659 . … Therefore, the Court finds that to raise the qualified-immunity shield in this case, Clafton must do more than quote legal standards on what counts as clearly-established law. IV.

Henry Benitez v. D. Wolff, J. Kihl

985 F.2d 662 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Feb 3, 1993

The court also ruled that if defendants had violated Beni-tez’s right to due process, they were entitled to qualified immunity because the specific right infringed was not “ ‘clearly established’ at the time of the alleged … Qualified Immunity The doctrine of qualified immunity shields state officials from liability for damages if their actions did not violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person

Ashly Romero v. City of Lansing, Mich.

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Feb 12, 2026

officer] violated the Fourth Amendment [because the officer] was at least entitled to qualified immunity.”); White, 580 U.S. at 78–81 (addressing only the clearly established prong); Mullenix, 577 U.S. at 11 (“We address … Some of our cases have limited the apparent presumption against qualified immunity to the clearly established prong of qualified immunity. See Hart v. Hillsdale Cnty., 973 F.3d 627, 635 (6th Cir. 2020).

Clem v. Corbeau

284 F.3d 543 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Mar 25, 2002

Accordingly, a constitutional right is clearly established for qualified immunity purposes not only when it has been “specifically adjudicated” but also when it is “manifestly included within more general applications of … Indeed, in this circuit, we have found only one case in which an officer sought qualified immunity on facts like those alleged by Clem, and there we con-eluded that the officer’s appeal of the denial of qualified immunity