Case law

Frazier v. Williams

620 F. Supp. 2d 103 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 2, 2009

Callahan, — U.S. -, 129 S.Ct. 808, 815 , 172 L.Ed.2d 565 (2009), the Supreme Court gave the following succinct overview of the qualified immunity doctrine: The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials … Consequently, she is entitled to qualified immunity. B.

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

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.

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)

Jeffrey Joseph v. Kurt Schmiedeskamp

Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jul 23, 2025

He must also overcome qualified immunity, which “shields government officials from liability when their conduct does not violate clearly established constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … Schmiedeskamp maintains on appeal that he is entitled to qualified immunity because he didn’t violate Joseph’s clearly established rights.

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.

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.

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

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.

Julia Correia v. Glenn Jones

943 F.3d 845 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Nov 27, 2019

“Qualified immunity shields officials from civil liability in § 1983 actions when their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … “Qualified immunity analysis requires courts to determine whether (1) the plaintiff has alleged or shown a violation of a constitutional right, and (2) the right was clearly established at the time of the defendants’ alleged

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.

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.

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.

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

Thad Delaughter v. Ronald Woodall

909 F.3d 130 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Nov 19, 2018

Clearly established law Having established that summary judgment on the first prong was incorrect, we turn to the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis. … Therefore, if the fact issues under prong one were resolved in Delaughter’s favor, Hatten’s conduct would violate clearly established law and he would not be entitled to qualified immunity.

Reeves v. Thigpen

879 F. Supp. 1153 · District Court, M.D. Alabama · Mar 16, 1995

Under this test, public officials performing discretionary functions which would objectively appear to be within the official’s authority have qualified immunity if their challenged conduct did not violate a clearly established … To defeat a qualified immunity defense, the plaintiff bears the burden of showing that the “legal norms allegedly violated by the defendant were clearly established at the time of the challenged actions or, ... the law clearly

Austrian v. Burlington

Vermont Superior Court · Aug 13, 2024

“The outcome of the inquiry depends on the objective reasonableness of an official’s conduct, as measured by reference to clearly established law.” Id. … Donovan, 2012 VT 27, 1 6 n.2, 191 Vt. 412 ("The fate of an official with qualified immunity depends upon the circumstances and motivations of his actions, as established by the evidence at trial.' .

Nicholas George v. William Rehiel

738 F.3d 562 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Dec 24, 2013

We therefore need not proceed to the second step of the qualified immunity analysis to determine whether that right was clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct. See Scott v. … valid First Amendment claim and that, even if he had, he had not alleged a violation of a clearly established constitutional right and so they were entitled to qualified immunity.

Salem v. Michigan Department of Corrections

643 F. App'x 526 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Mar 9, 2016

As for the individual-capacity claims, Defendants invoked qualified immunity, arguing that the strip searches violated no clearly established constitutional rights. … To defeat a claim of qualified immunity, a plaintiff must show: (1) that the defendant violated a constitutional right, and (2) that right was clearly established at the time of the defendant’s actions. Pearson v.