Case law

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.

Ram v. Rubin

118 F.3d 1306 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jul 2, 1997

under the doctrine of qualified immunity. … When an official asserts qualified immunity, we apply a two-part analysis: “1) Was the law governing the official’s conduct clearly established?

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.

Chappell v. City of Cleveland

584 F. Supp. 2d 974 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Sep 30, 2008

In general, qualified immunity applies when government officials’ conduct in performing discretionary functions “does not violate ‘clearly established’ statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would … The Saucier Test For Qualified Immunity In Saucier v.

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.

C.A. v. Lowndes County Department of Family & Children Services

93 F. Supp. 2d 744 · District Court, N.D. Mississippi · Mar 13, 2000

The first inquiry in examining a defense of qualified immunity is whether the plaintiff has alleged “the violation of a clearly established constitutional right.” Siegert v. … As such, the Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity because the constitutional right to be free from state-created dangers was not, and is not, clearly established in this jurisdiction.

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.

Adams v. Thompson

560 F. Supp. 894 · District Court, M.D. Louisiana · Apr 14, 1983

Qualified immunity now depends on the objective reasonableness of an official’s conduct, as measured by reference to clearly established law, not upon malice or other subjective factors. Harlow v. … Since it is clear that qualified or “good faith” immunity is an affirmative defense, Gomez v.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

Williams v. Bitner

285 F. Supp. 2d 593 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 30, 2003

Defendants also claim entitlement to qualified immunity on the ground that the violation was not so “clearly established” that prison officials should be expected to avoid it. … Long, 72 F.3d 70, 73-74 (8th Cir.1995) (finding that Muslim inmates had a clearly established right to refrain from handling pork for purposes of a qualified immunity analysis); Kenner v.

Stanislaw v. Navajo County Bd. of Sup'rs

70 F.3d 1280 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Nov 15, 1995

This admission, along with the statements from the victim and a witness, gave Deputy Clark probable cause to arrest Stanislaw. 6 In addition, the district court properly found Deputy Clark protected by qualified immunity … Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 639 (1987) (qualified immunity protects an officer who acts reasonably in light of clearly established law). 2.

Crane v. City of Arlington

50 F.4th 453 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Sep 30, 2022

“The doctrine of qualified immunity shields officials from civil liability so long as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known … The second step of the qualified immunity inquiry is asking “whether the violated constitutional right was clearly established at the time of the violation.” 58 The purpose of this inquiry is to determine whether the

Anthony Davila v. Robin Gladden

777 F.3d 1198 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jan 9, 2015

Here, we begin and end our qualified immunity analysis with the second question—whether it was clearly established at the time of the incident that the Defendants violated Mr. Davila’s constitutional rights. … Campos does not therefore clearly establish a right under RFRA in the Eleventh Circuit. For those reasons, these Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. So even if Mr.