Case law

Michael J. Bakalis v. Jenni Golembeski Mark R. Stephens Merrill Becker James Durkin

35 F.3d 318 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Nov 8, 1994

However, a plaintiff may not escape the doctrine of qualified immunity by alleging violation of a clearly established, but very broad, constitutional right. [0]ur cases establish that the right the official is alleged to … Walker, 812 F.2d 304, 307-08 (7th Cir.1987), we explained: [The Harlow qualified immunity] test would have little bite if a right “clearly established” at any level of generality could survive it.

Merchant v. Bauer

677 F.3d 656 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Apr 26, 2012

established law and therefore has no immunity"). … Accordingly, the second step in our qualified immunity analysis — whether the Fourth Amendment right was clearly established — must also be resolved in favor of Merchant.

Ayeni Ex Rel. Ayeni v. CBS Inc.

848 F. Supp. 362 · District Court, E.D. New York · Apr 7, 1994

Qualified Immunity of Agent Mottola. … Qualified Immunity of CBS and Jor-gensen. Both CBS and Jorgensen claim qualified immunity.

Whitney Hodges v. City of Grand Rapids, Mich.

139 F.4th 495 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · May 30, 2025

As we will explain, the complaint here does not establish the defense of qualified immunity because Hodges has alleged facts making plausible the inference that the officers violated Honestie’s clearly established Fourth … Qualified Immunity Having determined the proper scope of the record on appeal, we must now determine whether Hodges has plausibly alleged that the officers violated Honestie’s clearly established rights.

Sargent v Town of Hudson

2017 DNH 210 · District Court, D. New Hampshire · Sep 27, 2017

This argument is a nonstarter, however, as the Supreme Court has made clear that in order to defeat qualified immunity, the clearly established right must be the federal right on which the claim for relief is based. … Whereas qualified immunity analysis typically focuses on whether the underlying right was clearly established during the relevant period, see, e.g., Belsito Commc’ns, Inc. v.

Petta v. Rivera

143 F.3d 895 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jun 30, 1998

Regarding the applicability of qualified immunity, we merely observed that “[u]se of excessive force in making an arrest violates clearly established rights, and the doctrine of qualified immunity therefore does not shield … Once an officer uses objectively unreasonable force to effect an arrest, he loses his qualified immunity, whether the other elements of an excessive force claim are clearly established or not.

Edwards v. Department of Transportation

66 Wash. App. 552 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Jul 22, 1992

Qualified Immunity. … On the other hand, if the law was clearly established and the conduct of the official is violative of an individual's statutory or constitutional rights the immunity defense should fail. Harlow v.

Selwyn Vanderpool v. West Virginia DHHR

West Virginia Supreme Court · May 26, 2020

In Crouch, the Court examined whether internal DHHR policy violations rose to the level of being violations of a clearly established right. … Stanley is entitled to qualified immunity based on W. Va.

Murcia v. County of Orange

226 F. Supp. 2d 489 · District Court, S.D. New York · Oct 4, 2002

the supervisor liable were clearly established at the time of the violation. … I conclude that Bigger is entitled to qualified immunity in this situation. In essence, plaintiff argues that Bigger cannot acquire qualified immunity by accident.

Iris Violeta Valiente v. Hon. Ramon Luis Rivera, Etc.

966 F.2d 21 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Jun 5, 1992

Claiming qualified immunity, defendant moved for . summary judgment. … As it was not clearly established at that time that such personnel actions, even if politically motivated, violated the constitution, defendant mayor is entitled to quali *24 fied immunity from damages liability with respect

Falkner v. Houston

974 F. Supp. 757 · District Court, D. Nebraska · Mar 6, 1997

The only issue to be decided by the court “is purely a legal one: whether the facts alleged (by the plaintiff, or, in some cases, the defendant) support a claim of violation of clearly established law.” … For the right to be clearly established, “[t]he 'contours' of the right must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that right ...

Halley ex rel. J.H. v. Oklahoma ex rel. Oklahoma State Department of Human Services

176 F. Supp. 3d 1268 · District Court, E.D. Oklahoma · Mar 31, 2016

“The doctrine of qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions from liability for damages ‘insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights … This law was clearly established by 2014. See, e.g., Estate of B.I.C. v.

Louise Arnold v. Charles McClinton

112 F.4th 598 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Aug 14, 2024

“In a § 1983 action, an officer is entitled to qualified immunity unless: (1) the officer’s conduct violated a constitutional right, and (2) that right was clearly established.” Ching ex rel. Jordan v. … In these circumstances, we conclude that Deputy McClinton is entitled to qualified immunity because his conduct in this case did not violate McDaniel’s clearly established rights. See Plumhoff v.

Electric Fetus Co. v. City of Duluth

547 N.W.2d 448 · Court of Appeals of Minnesota · May 14, 1996

State officials are entitled to qualified immunity when “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. … Unless the plaintiffs allegations state a claim of violation of clearly established law, a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal before commencement of discovery. Mitchell v.

Dettelis v. Sharbaugh

919 F.3d 161 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Mar 20, 2019

Instead, we conclude that qualified immunity bars Dettelis’s claim. 4  As a general matter, probation officers are entitled to immunity in the performance of … App’x 83, 84 (2d Cir. 2008) (holding state parole officer entitled to qualified immunity in filing parole violation charges).

Frederick Jackson v. City of Madison

Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · May 28, 2026

We reiterate that to defeat qualified immunity, a plaintiff must point us to law that is established clearly enough “that every reasonable official would interpret it to establish the particular rule the plaintiff seeks to … Officers are entitled to qualified immunity unless “(1) they violated a federal stat- utory or constitutional right, and (2) the unlawfulness of their conduct was ‘clearly established at the time.’”

Good v. Curtis

601 F.3d 393 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Mar 23, 2010

immunity defense if he procures false identification by unlawful means . . . for such activity violates clearly established constitutional principles.” 849 F.2d at 1559. … in light of clearly established law.”

Donovan v. Briggs

250 F. Supp. 2d 242 · District Court, W.D. New York · Feb 26, 2003

Qualified immunity shields public officials “from civil damages liability insofar as their conduct 'does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known,’ Harlow … was not clearly established in the context of the actions giving rise to the suit); Warlick v.

Debbie Latits v. Lowell Phillips

878 F.3d 541 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Dec 27, 2017

Whether that Right was Clearly Established Even if Officer Phillips violated Latits’s constitutional right, he is entitled to qualified immunity if that right was not clearly established at the time of the violation—June … Thus, this case fails to satisfy the “clearly established” prong of the qualified immunity doctrine. 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