Case law

Van Beek v. Robinson

879 F. Supp. 2d 707 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Jul 16, 2012

Clearly Established Law To overcome an assertion of qualified immunity, Plaintiff must also demonstrate that the constitutional right at issue was clearly established at the time of the alleged deprivation. … Defendants claim that the detention and search of Plaintiff is not “clearly established” as unlawful, and they, therefore, are entitled to qualified immunity. The Court disagrees.

Brannum Ex Rel. Brannum v. Overton County School Board

516 F.3d 489 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Feb 20, 2008

Under the qualified immunity doctrine, public officials cannot be held liable for violating a person’s constitutional rights unless the right was clearly established at the time of the alleged improper conduct. … Creighton, 483 U.S. 635 , 107 S.Ct. 3034 , 97 L.Ed.2d 523 (1987), the Supreme Court articulated the meaning of “clearly established” in the context of the defense of qualified immunity: The contours of the right must be sufficiently

Liska v. Dart

60 F. Supp. 3d 889 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jul 23, 2014

“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 a reasonable person … In determining whether qualified immunity applies, a court considers “(1) whether the plaintiffs allegations make out a deprivation of a constitutional right, and (2) whether the right at issue was clearly established at

Mich. Interlock, LLC v. Alcohol Detection Sys., LLC

360 F. Supp. 3d 671 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Dec 27, 2018

Qualified immunity "shield[s]" public officials from money-damages liability if 'their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known." … In other words, Secretary Johnson is entitled to qualified immunity in her personal capacity because, at the time of the Order, it was not clearly established that she might violate Plaintiffs' constitutional rights.

Young v. County of Fulton

999 F. Supp. 282 · District Court, N.D. New York · Apr 6, 1998

Qualified Immunity Standard The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials from suits against them in their individual capacity for money damages where “their conduct does not violate clearly established … established right of which a reasonable person would have known, the defendants Pape, Lockwood, Johannes, and Hasenfuss, are therefore immune from liability under qualified immunity doctrine.

Heard v. Bear

District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · Feb 6, 2020

Federal law as determined by [the] Supreme Court of the United States,” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1);3 (2) “resulted in a decision that . . . involved an unreasonable application of clearly established Federal law,” id.; or … Significantly, an “unreasonable application of” clearly established federal law under § 2254(d)(1) “must be objectively unreasonable, not merely wrong.” White v. Woodall, 134 S.

Braun v. Maynard

652 F.3d 557 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Jul 21, 2011

Previous cases need not be on all fours with the current one to clearly establish the law for qualified immunity purposes. See Amaechi v. West, 237 F.3d 356, 362-63 (4th Cir. 2001). … In the qualified immunity context, these factors counsel against hastily concluding that the law clearly forbade the officers’ conduct.

James DeLanis v. Metro. Govt of Nashville

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Nov 24, 2025

And it did not violate any clearly established law. … So long as its actions did not violate clearly established law, qualified immunity applies. Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 236 (2009).

Hemry v. Ross

62 F.4th 1248 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Mar 10, 2023

When a defendant claims qualified immunity, the plaintiff must show “(1) the defendant violated his constitutional rights; and (2) the law was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation.” Soza v. … Accordingly, the officers are entitled to qualified immunity. III.

Rodgers v. Horsley

39 F.3d 308 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Dec 5, 1994

DISCUSSION Once the qualified immunity defense is raised, the plaintiff bears the burden of showing that the federal “rights” allegedly violated were “clearly established.” Barts v. … Instead, the question in this case, as in all qualified immunity cases, is fact specific: in May 1991, was it clearly established in this circuit that it was unconstitutional for a mental institution to fail to supervise

Thomas A. Munz v. Tobin Michael, Deputy U.S. Marshal Kirk Papenthien, Deputy U.S. Marshal, David R. Hansen, U.S. District Judge

28 F.3d 795 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jul 1, 1994

Second, defendants argue that *798 the district court improperly denied their qualified immunity defense because Munz’s allegations, even if true, did not establish a violation of a constitutional right clearly established … “This court has ... taken a broad view of what constitutes ‘clearly established law’ for the purposes of a qualified immunity inquiry....” Boswell v.

Knowlton Merritt v. John E. MacKey and Jerry Howard, Knowlton Merritt v. John E. MacKey Steve Vincent

932 F.2d 1317 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · May 8, 1991

This court also held that Vincent and Mackey were not entitled to qualified immunity because they knowingly acted outside the scope of their employment and violated a clearly established due process right. … Qualified Immunity In Merritt I , this court held that neither Vincent nor Mackey was entitled to qualified immunity because “their conduct exceeded the scope of their authority and because they violated Merritt’s clearly

Long v. Slaton

508 F.3d 576 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Nov 16, 2007

, violated no clearly established *584 right. … Montoute is a qualified immunity decision.

Robinson v. City of Seattle

119 Wash. 2d 34 · Washington Supreme Court · May 14, 1992

constitutional or statutory rights; such persons are entitled to qualified immunity from a claim under section 1983 if their conduct is objectively reasonable when measured against clearly established law. … Qualified immunity from suit must be granted when the law or right allegedly violated is not clearly established. Conner v. Santa Ana, 897 F.2d 1487 , 1492 (9th Cir. 1990).

Nicholas C. Wade v. Solomon Daniels

36 F.4th 1318 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jun 13, 2022

medical needs—which, as addressed in the following sections, he cannot—qualified immunity applies because Wade failed to show that the defendants violated clearly established law. … Because there is no clearly established law that placed Investigators Daniels, Jones, and Wilson on notice that their actions violated Wade’s constitutional rights, they are entitled to qualified immunity on Wade’s medical

Hanrahan v. Doling

331 F.3d 93 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · May 30, 2003

In evaluating whether a right is clearly established for purposes of the second prong of the qualified immunity inquiry, the court looks to both “the clarity of the law establishing the right allegedly violated” as well as … We note that the extent to which district court decisions may be taken into account in evaluating whether a right is clearly established for qualified immunity purposes is far from clear. See Anderson v.

Deary v. Evans

570 F. Supp. 189 · District Court, Virgin Islands · Jun 6, 1983

The Court in Saldana outlined the procedures necessary to establish the defense of qualified immunity on a motion for summary judgment. … The burden of persuasion then shifts to the plaintiff who must rebut the good faith or qualified immunity defense by showing that the defendant’s conduct violates clearly established law.

Angela Bouggess v. McKenzie Mattingly

482 F.3d 886 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 16, 2007

The Supreme Court has held that defendants in such suits are entitled to qualified immunity from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights … In other words, an officer will be denied qualified immunity if he violates a statutory or constitutional right that was “so clearly established when the acts were committed that any officer in the defendant’s position, measured

Rozek v. Topolnicki

865 F.2d 1154 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jan 12, 1989

The court held that defendants Reisdorff and Liddle were entitled to qualified immunity because they were working under To-polnicki’s direction, and that Rozek had not shown they had violated any clearly established constitutional … The doctrine of qualified immunity provides that government officials “generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights

MacKey v. Cleveland State University

837 F. Supp. 1396 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Jul 20, 1993

Once a defendant raises the qualified immunity defense, the plaintiff must produce additional facts or allegations demonstrating that his constitutional rights were violated and “that these rights were so clearly established … Qualified immunity is available to the Trustees, Flower, Muczyk, and Konstantinos in their individual capacities since their conduct did not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable