Case law

Ross Anthony Smith and Michael Bodak v. Mark Garretto, Individually

147 F.3d 91 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jun 3, 1998

Qualified immunity protects a governmental official from suit for any actions that did not violate a clearly established constitutional right and those actions as to which the official had an objectively reasonable good faith … The first inquiry to be made concerning qualified immunity is whether the plaintiff has “allege[d] the violation of a clearly established constitutional right.” Siegert v.

Muhammed Kenyatta v. Roy K. Moore, James O. Ingram and Thomas Fitzpatrick

744 F.2d 1179 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Oct 29, 1984

In Harlow the Supreme Court simplified the qualified immunity defense, jettisoning the previous requirement of good faith, and announced a simple objective standard; whether a defendant violated “clearly established” law … As we have explained above, the Harlow Court eliminated the subjective prong from analysis of qualified immunity; what remains is the question whether the agents’ actions violated rights clearly established at the time.

Ronald Davidson v. Charles J. Scully, Superintendent, and Edward Bollinger, Correction Officer

114 F.3d 12 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · May 22, 1997

Under the law of qualified immunity, government officials may be sued only for violations of “clearly established” rules of federal law. Harlow v. … Summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity is thus appropriate only if: the asserted rights were not clearly established, or if the evidence is such that, even when it is viewed in the light most favorable to the

Glenn-Robinson v. Acker

140 N.C. App. 606 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Dec 5, 2000

“The test of qualified immunity for police officers sued under [section 1983] is whether [the officers’ conduct violated] clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known … In ruling on the defense of qualified immunity we must: (1) identify the specific right allegedly violated; (2) determine whether the right allegedly violated was clearly established at the time of the violation; and (3)

Sean Hart v. City of Grand Rapids, Mich.

138 F.4th 409 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · May 15, 2025

Because Hart has failed to meet his burden of establishing that Officer Reinink violated his clearly established rights, I would affirm the district court’s grant of qualified immunity to Officer Reinink. … Two long-established qualified immunity principles compel this result. To overcome an officer’s qualified immunity defense, “[t]he plaintiff bears the burden of showing that the right was clearly established.” Bell v.

Burnett v. Bottoms

368 F. Supp. 2d 1033 · District Court, D. Arizona · May 2, 2005

Qualified Immunity Defendants contend that the doctrine of qualified immunity shields them from Plaintiffs § 1983 claims. … If the right is not clearly established, the individual public officials are entitled to qualified immunity if a reasonable official could have believed that his or her conduct was lawful. Thompson v.

Lintz v. Skipski

807 F. Supp. 1299 · District Court, W.D. Michigan · Nov 25, 1992

However, the qualified immunity doctrine shields government officials performing discretionary functions from civil damages liability provided their conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … Skipski violated a clearly established constitutional right. Therefore, her motion will be granted based upon the doctrine of qualified immunity.

Putnam v. Davies

169 F.R.D. 89 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Sep 26, 1996

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY Both Plaintiff and Defendants have moved for summary judgment on the issue of the availability of qualified immunity to shield Defendants from liability for damages. … 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

Roe v. Hamilton County Department of Human Services

53 Ohio App. 3d 120 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jul 6, 1988

“clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … a qualified immunity is appropriate, they should have an opportunity to show whether any clearly established constitutional or statutory standards were violated.

Brittany Ruffin v. Kevin Davis

Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Apr 29, 2026

qualified immunity.” … The “right need not be recognized by a court in a specific factual context before such right may be considered ‘clearly established’ for purposes of qualified immunity.” Wilson v.

Joseph Rome v. Eugene Burden, Michel Cabello, Angela Phillips, and Sareta Davis

Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin) · Oct 31, 2002

Qualified immunity is an affirmative defense. We need only reach this issue if there is a clearly established statutory or constitutional right violated. Rome has not alleged any violation of a statutory right. … Furthermore, as Rome did not establish the predicate constitutional violation, we need not reach the issue of qualified immunity.

Wayne King v. Charles Beavers

148 F.3d 1031 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jul 9, 1998

Qualified immunity protects government officials from damage liability unless their discretionary acts violated clearly established statutory or constitutional rights. See Harlow v. … We conclude Beavers is entitled to qualified immunity for two distinct reasons. A. No Clearly Established Federal Right.

Merchant v. Fairfax County, Va.

778 F. Supp. 2d 636 · District Court, E.D. Virginia · Apr 11, 2011

Yet, this does not end the qualified immunity analysis. The second step of the inquiry requires determining whether the constitutional right violated was “clearly established” in the specific context presented here. … Merchant — -was clearly established. Therefore, Officer Bauer is not entitled to summary judgment based on qualified immunity. 14 *650 B.

Caron v. Hester, et al.

2001 DNH 206 · District Court, D. New Hampshire · Nov 13, 2001

Qualified Immunity. … To qualify as a clearly established right, “the law must have defined the right in a quite specific manner, and . . . the announcement of the rule establishing the right must have been unambiguous and widespread, such

Thomas Noon v. Mayor John Smedley

94 F.4th 759 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Mar 4, 2024

Smedley and Kerns claim they are entitled to qualified immunity. … As with every qualified immunity analysis, we are tasked with a two-part inquiry to determine (1) whether a constitutional violation occurred, and (2) whether the right in question was clearly established at the time of the

Harris v. G.K.

187 So. 3d 871 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Feb 24, 2016

Analysis Qualified immunity shields a government actor from personal liability when his conduct does not violate clearly established rights. See Anderson v. … The burden then shifts to the plaintiff to prove that the defendant’s conduct violated clearly established statutory or constitutional rights. Harlow, 457 U.S. at 818, 102 S. Ct. 2727. Becker v.

Fidelity Security Life Insurance v. State

191 Ariz. 222 · Arizona Supreme Court · Feb 19, 1998

That section provides in relevant part: Qualified Immunity A. … were dismissed on the pleadings under the doctrine of absolute immunity, we do not reach the question of qualified immunity.

Heidemann v. Rother

84 F.3d 1021 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jul 1, 1996

For reversal, all of the defendants, including Joy, argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity as a matter of law because plaintiffs have failed to allege a violation of any clearly established constitutional or federal … In Behrens, the defendant, an official with the Federal Home Loan Bank Board, had moved for summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds, arguing that his actions had not violated any clearly established right.

Trigalet v. Young

54 F.3d 645 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · May 2, 1995

The court held that the officers were not entitled to qualified immunity on the Trigalets’ substantive due process claim upon concluding that, at the time of the incident, the law was clearly established that the officers … The court concluded that the officers were not entitled to qualified immunity because the law under which defendants actions could form the basis of a constitutional claim became clearly established on March 1, 1990, when

Weaver v. Clarke

45 F.3d 1253 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jan 30, 1995

immunity analysis--whether the right allegedly violated was "clearly established." … CONCLUSION 18 Because Weaver has alleged the violation of a clearly-established constitutional right, the defendant prison officials are not entitled to dismissal on the basis of qualified immunity.