Case law

Baxter v. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources

165 Wis. 2d 298 · Court of Appeals of Wisconsin · Oct 24, 1991

The meaning of "reasonable accommodation" was not clearly established. 6 "[T]he right the official is alleged to have violated must have been 'clearly established' in a more particularized, and hence more relevant, sense: … That term and the regulations surrounding it cannot fairly be read as clearly establishing any such rights. 8 *310 However, because the basic requirement of "reasonable accommodation" was clearly established by 1985, if the

Rebecca S. Doby Herbert K. Doby, in No. 98-1124 v. James Decrescenzo Bucks County Department of Mental Health and Mental Retardation Phillip M. Fenster, County Administrator, Bucks County Department of Mental Health and Mental Retardation, in His Official Capacity Amy Bryant, Individually and in Her Official Capacity as Delegate for the County Administrator of the Bucks County Department of Mental Health/mental Retardation Lenape Valley Foundation Debbie Neidhardt, Individually and in Her Official Capacity as Delegate for the County Administrator of the Bucks County Department of Mental Health and Mental Retardation Township of Warrington Warrington Township Police Department John Bonargo, Chief of Police, Warrington Township Police Department, in His Official Capacity John Doe, Police Officer 1, Officer Who, With Police Officer 2, Asked Mrs. Doby to Step Outside Apartment at Approximately 7:00 P.M. And Took Mrs. Doby in Handcuffs and Shackles to the Hospital, Individually and in His Official Capacity as Police Officer of Warrington Township John Doe, Police Officer 2, Officer Who, With Police Officer 1, Asked Mrs. Doby to Step Outside Apartment at Approximately 7:00 P.M. And Took Mrs. Doby in Handcuffs and Shackles to the Hospital, Individually and in His Official Capacity as Police Officer of Warrington Township John Doe, Police Officer 3, Officer Who Came to the Dobys' Apartment at Approximately 7:00 P.M. On December 30, 1993, and Remained at Their Apartment After Mrs. Doby Was Taken to the Hospital, Individually and in His Official Capacity as Police Officer of Warrington Township Lenape Valley Foundation John C. Richards, M.D. Doylestown Hospital Joseph Knox, Sergeant, of the Warrington Township Police Department, in His Official and Individual Capacity Michael Neipp, Officer, of the Warrington Township Police Department, in His Official and Individual Capacity Kenneth Hawthorn, Officer, of the Warrington Township Police Department, in His Official and Individual Capacity Rebecca S. Doby Herbert K. Doby, in No. 98-1224 v. James Decrescenzo Bucks County Department of Mental Health and Mental Retardation Phillip M. Fenster, County Administrator, Bucks County Department of Mental Health and Mental Retardation, in His Official Capacity Amy Bryant, Individually and in Her Official Capacity as Delegate for the County Administrator of the Bucks County Department of Mental Health/mental Retardation Lenape Valley Foundation Debbie Neidhardt, Individually and in Her Official Capacity as Delegate for the County Administrator of the Bucks County Department of Mental Health and Mental Retardation Township of Warrington Warrington Township Police Department John Bonargo, Chief of Police, Warrington Township Police Department, in His Official Capacity John Doe, Police Officer 1, Officer Who, With Police Officer 2, Asked Mrs. Doby to Step Outside Apartment at Approximately 7:00 P.M. And Took Mrs. Doby in Handcuffs and Shackles to the Hospital, Individually and in His Official Capacity as Police Officer of Warrington Township John Doe, Police Officer 2, Officer Who, With Police Officer 1, Asked Mrs. Doby to Step Outside Apartment at Approximately 7:00 P.M. And Took Mrs. Doby in Handcuffs and Shackles to the Hospital, Individually and in His Official Capacity as Police Officer of Warrington Township John Doe, Police Officer 3, 2 Officer Who Came to the Dobys' Apartment at Approximately 7:00 P.M. On December 30, 1993, and Remained at Their Apartment After Mrs. Doby Was Taken to the Hospital, Individually and in His Official Capacity as Police Officer of Warrington Township Lenape Valley Foundation John C. Richards, M.D. Doylestown Hospital Joseph Knox, Sergeant, of the Warrington Township Police Department, in His Official and Individual Capacity Michael Neipp, Officer, of the Warrington Township Police Department, in His Official and Individual Capacity Kenneth Hawthorn, Officer, of the Warrington Township Police Department, in His Official and Individual Capacity

171 F.3d 858 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Mar 22, 1999

with Judge Fullam's conclusion that DeCrescenzo qualifies for immunity under section 7114. … Thus, the implicit question addressed in that case was what kind of medical personnel would qualify for immunity.

William Torres v. Thomas Read

593 F. App'x 742 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Feb 25, 2015

We review de novo a district court’s order denying summary judgment on the ground of qualified immunity. Rodis v. City & Cnty. of S.F., 558 F.3d 964, 968 (9th Cir. 2009). … The two-pronged qualified immunity inquiry asks (1) whether “the officer’s conduct violated a constitutional right” and (2) whether “the right was clearly established” at the time of the alleged misconduct. Alston v.

Rueb

District Court, D. Colorado · Nov 5, 2025

Once the defense of qualified immunity has been raised, “the onus is on the plaintiff to demonstrate ‘(1) that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was “clearly established” … The Tenth Circuit has explained the “clearly established” prong of the qualified immunity analysis as follows: A clearly established right is one that is sufficiently

Barrows v. Collins

District Court, W.D. Arkansas · Nov 15, 2019

Qualified Immunity The Court need not engage in a qualified-immunity analysis in this case, as it already found that none of Barrows’s claims amount to the deprivation of a constitutional right. … McNeese, 675 F.3d 1158, 1161 (8th Cir. 2012) (explaining that an official may be entitled to qualified immunity if the facts show that the plaintiff has been deprived of a constitutional right and that the right was clearly

People v. Bylsma

493 Mich. 17 · Michigan Supreme Court · Dec 19, 2012

However, a defendant need not establish the elements of § 4 immunity in order establish the elements of a § 8 defense. 1. … Rather, in People v Kolanek, we held that a defendant need not establish the elements of § 4 immunity in order to establish the elements of the § 8 defense.4 Accordingly, we reverse the Court of Appeals’ judgment to the

Guider v. Smith

431 Mich. 559 · Michigan Supreme Court · Oct 24, 1988

clearly established at the time in question. … If the undisputed facts show that the defendant’s conduct violated no clearly established constitutional standards, qualified immunity applies as a matter of law.

Stinde v. Schoenbeck

District Court, S.D. Illinois · Sep 27, 2022

In general, 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 … Walker, 865 F.3d 544 (7th Cir. 2017) (denying qualified immunity to jail staff who were deliberately indifferent to plaintiff’s risk of suicide, holding that qualified immunity need not be litigated and established disease

Latarsha Kelly v. Anthony Gaton

Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jan 27, 2023

did not violate clearly established law. … On the facts of this case, Officer Gaton is entitled to qualified immunity because he did not violate clearly established law.

Simpson v. Rivera

District Court, N.D. Ohio · Mar 21, 2023

In sum, qualified immunity hinges on: (1) whether there was a violation of a constitutional right, and (2) was that right clearly established at the time of the incident. Saucier v. … Ct. at 8 (exploring qualified immunity’s “clearly established” prong in the context of excessive force claim).

Wayne Ford v. John McGinnis Superintendent, Patrick McGann Deputy Superintendent of Administration, Gordon Lord, Assistant Deputy Superintendent

352 F.3d 582 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Dec 15, 2003

We agree with the district court’s discussion of qualified immunity insofar as it found that the constitutional right at issue is clearly established. Ford, 230 F.Supp.2d at 348 . … claimed right is clearly established. 17 .

CLARK CNTY. v. DIST. CT. (EGGLESTON)

141 Nev. Adv. Op. No. 31 · Nevada Supreme Court · Jun 12, 2025

Granting summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds is appropriate where the defendant's conduct did not violate any clearly established constitutional law. See White u. … Eggleston has not met the exacting "clearly established" standard required to defeat qualified immunity on this point.

NEWBERG v. PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 2, 2025

Qualified Immunity Does Not Preclude Liability Because Plaintiff’s Rights Were Well-Established: The application of qualified immunity is inapplicable because … Qualified immunity does not preclude liability if the “official’s conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right.” Id. at 232.

Grieb

District Court, M.D. Florida · Jan 29, 2026

But under the doctrine of qualified immunity, a plaintiff must surmount a high bar: he must demonstrate that the officers violated a statutory or constitutional right that was “clearly established” at the time of the … Norrod, 106 F.3d 1289, 1299 (6th Cir. 1997) (concluding that an observing officer was entitled to qualified immunity because “there was no clearly established right being violated for which [he] had a duty to intervene

Clinton v. Perez

District Court, D. Connecticut · Jul 9, 2021

And even if there were such a right, in the absence of applicable Supreme Court or Second Circuit caselaw clearly establishing such a right, the Defendants would be entitled to qualified immunity against this claim. … Haslun, 598 F.3d 70, 73 (2d Cir. 2010) (“To overcome the defense of qualified immunity, a plaintiff must show both (1) the violation of a constitutional right and (2) that the constitutional right was clearly established

Montaz Lee Kennedy v. India Smith

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 20, 2026

If the defendant properly raises qualified immunity, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to satisfy the two-prong test by showing “that (1) the defendant violated a constitutional right and (2) that right was clearly established … Perhaps it wasn’t clearly established that the plaintiff’s speech was protected, or maybe it wasn’t clearly established that the defendant’s conduct amounted to an adverse action.

Gaddis v. Harrison

District Court, W.D. Kentucky · Nov 6, 2020

of qualified immunity. … City of Orlando, 407 F.3d 1152, 1159 (11th Cir. 2005)) (“A right may be clearly established for qualified immunity purposes . . .

Tomlinson v. Dallas Area Rapid Transit

District Court, N.D. Texas · Apr 19, 2021

In doing so, Lindsay and Sorrells asserted qualified immunity as an affirmative defense. See Dkt. No. 17 at 8; Dkt. No. 19 at 7- 8. … See Wicks, 41 F.3d at 994; Backe, 691 F.3d at 648 (“[T]his court has established a careful procedure under which a district court may defer its qualified immunity ruling if further factual development is necessary to

Mancuso v. Douglas Elliman, LLC

808 F. Supp. 2d 606 · District Court, S.D. New York · Aug 24, 2011

When analyzing this prong of a prima facie case, courts have used as a starting point the applicable criteria that the owner has established regarding who is “qualified.” … Other cases, including some cited by plaintiffs, have also used relevant criteria that the owner established in analyzing the “qualified” prong. See, e.g., Mencer v.

Rosa v. Bonk

District Court, D. Colorado · Aug 19, 2024

“The law is clearly established when a Supreme Court or Tenth Circuit decision is on point, [though the decision need not be precisely on point] or if the clearly established weight of authority from other courts shows … Second, “the plaintiff must show that the right was clearly established at the time of the alleged unlawful activity.” Id. The Court may examine the two prongs of qualified immunity in either order. Pearson v.