Case law

Sanchez v. Swyden

139 F.3d 464 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Apr 16, 1998

Under the test for qualified immunity, Sanchez has failed to prove that he was deprived of a clearly established constitutional right. … The Doctrine of Qualified Immunity The well-established test for qualified immunity requires us to engage in a two-step inquiry.

Creech Poole v. City of Shreveport

13 F.4th 420 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Sep 10, 2021

Qualified immunity shields officers from liability unless their conduct violates a clearly established federal right of which a reasonable person would have known. Kisela v. Hughes, 138 S. … of clearly established law.

Anselmo v. County of Shasta

873 F. Supp. 2d 1247 · District Court, E.D. California · Jun 8, 2012

“[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 a reasonable person should have … If a right is clearly established, a public official is granted qualified immunity only if a reasonable official would not have known that his conduct violated the clearly established right. See id.

Bletz v. Gribble

641 F.3d 743 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · May 27, 2011

Generally, summary judgment based on qualified immunity is proper if the officer was not on notice that his conduct was clearly unlawful. Higgason v. Stephens, 288 F.3d 868, 876 (6th Cir. 2002). … However, we reverse the district court’s decision denying Denny qualified immunity.

Stone v. Peacock

968 F.2d 1163 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 17, 1992

Qualified immunity is an affirmative defense which protects public officials acting within the scope of their discretionary authority and under clearly established law from insubstantial lawsuits. Butz v. … The jury was instructed to determine if defendants violated clearly established law.

Mihos v. Swift

358 F.3d 91 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Feb 13, 2004

For a plaintiff to overcome a qualified immunity defense, he must show that his allegations, if true, establish a constitutional violation; that the right was clearly established; and that a reasonable official would have … Under Wood, then, a plaintiff could usually avoid an adverse pre-trial qualified immunity ruling by merely alleging (1) a constitutional violation (2) of clearly established law (3) by a public official

Campos v. Van Ness

52 F. Supp. 3d 240 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Sep 29, 2014

The doctrine of qualified immunity is also not restricted to questions of established law. … Therefore, the questions relating to qualified immunity are whether Van Ness’ conduct violated rights of Martins or Campos that were “ ‘clearly established’ at the time of the challenged conduct,” July 27, 2008, Plumhoff,

Borzilleri v. Mosby

189 F. Supp. 3d 551 · District Court, D. Maryland · May 31, 2016

Second, regarding the First Amendment claim, she argues that she is entitled to qualified immunity because she did not violate “clearly established law.” Pearson v. … Mosby argues first that Borzilleri fails to state a claim; and second, that-she is entitled to qualified immunity on her Frist Amendment claim because she did not violate “clearly established law.” a.

Fletcher Small v. Officer Brock

963 F.3d 539 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 26, 2020

Of course, our holding does not mean that Small’s right was clearly established for the purpose of qualified immunity. But we need not resolve the issue of qualified immunity in this appeal. … But even if you doubted this precedent, there’s little doubt that the alleged constitutional violation here wasn’t clearly established and thus that the defendant is entitled to qualified immunity.

Patrick Devlin v. Richard Kalm

531 F. App'x 697 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 15, 2013

In order to overcome the defendants’ assertion of qualified immunity, Devlin must show that the defendants (1) violated his constitutional rights and (2) that those rights were clearly established at the time … “Clearly established” rights must be defined at an “appropriate level of generality” to avoid “collapsing the two qualified- immunity inquiries into one” without being so narrow that no violation can ever be found.

McGrew v. Duncan

333 F. Supp. 3d 730 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Aug 10, 2018

Government officials are entitled to qualified immunity where their actions do not "violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known." Greene v. … This right was "clearly established" for qualified immunity purposes at the time McGrew was placed in handcuffs. Id. (citation omitted).

Brooks v. City of West Point

18 F. Supp. 3d 790 · District Court, N.D. Mississippi · May 1, 2014

a qualified immunity defense with equal specificity.” … “[A] court addressing a claim of qualified immunity must determine first whether the plaintiff has adduced facts sufficient to establish a constitutional or statutory violation.” Collier v.

Hills v. Comwlth of KY

457 F.3d 583 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 9, 2006

The district court’s denial of qualified immunity in this case was based on the conclusion that “[u]nder the clearly established Kentucky law setting forth Mr. … Siddiqui qualified immunity Dr.

Barham v. Ramsey

338 F. Supp. 2d 48 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 24, 2004

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY STANDARD “Qualified immunity shields officials from liability for damages so long as their actions were objectively reasonable, as measured in the light of the legal rules that were ‘clearly established … This lack of clearly established law is relevant both to determining the “reasonableness” of an officer’s actions and whether the officer is entitled to qualified immunity.

Rosado v. Zayas

629 F. Supp. 911 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Jan 31, 1986

Defendant’s request for summary judgment on the grounds of qualified immunity is likewise DENIED. … A Section 1983 defendant claiming qualified or good faith immunity has the burden to prove that the law was not clearly established at the time of plaintiff’s alleged injuries, or that there exist extraordinary circumstances

Wright, Robert v. Funk

District Court, W.D. Wisconsin · Jul 23, 2020

Even if Johnson isn’t controlling, it is strong evidence that it wasn’t clearly established in December 2018 that defendants’ conduct violated the Eighth Amendment. So defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. … Haessig, 788 F.3d 662, 666 (7th Cir. 2015) (“The defense of qualified immunity protects government officials from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional

Hudson v. Maloney

326 F. Supp. 2d 206 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jul 23, 2004

Qualified immunity attaches to discretionary conduct of government officials that “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. … Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 528 , 105 S.Ct. 2806 , 86 L.Ed.2d 411 (1985) (officers immune unless their actions were “clearly proscribed” by established law).

Michael Washington v. City of Cincinnati

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 13, 2026

Because Washington’s protected property interest was not “clearly established,” Long’s claim of qualified immunity prevails. A. How to recognize a clearly established right is well understood. … Rather than awarding qualified immunity unless it was obvious that Long violated Washington’s clearly established rights, the majority opinion would deny qualified immunity unless it was obvious that Long did not do so.

Marley v. City of Allentown

774 F. Supp. 343 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 23, 1991

A government official asserting qualified immunity must establish that his conduct did “not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. … the legal rules that were ‘clearly established at the time it was taken.’”

Brown v. Flowers

974 F.3d 1178 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Sep 14, 2020

Because we find our existing caselaw on the sexual abuse of inmates clearly established the contours of Brown’s rights, we affirm the denial of qualified immunity. … Under that standard, we must grant Flowers qualified immunity unless “(1) a reasonable jury could find facts supporting a violation of a constitutional right, which (2) was clearly established at the time of [Flowers’s