Case law

Rice v. Burks

796 F. Supp. 319 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · May 28, 1992

The Seventh Circuit, in discussing that court’s jurisdiction over an interlocutory appeal purportedly on qualified immunity grounds, explained qualified immunity as follows: The defense of qualified immunity articulated in … An official who does not violate law “clearly established” at the time, 457 U.S. at 818 , 102 S.Ct. at 2738 , is entitled not only to prevail, but to prevail before trial. Qualified immunity, we know from Mitchell [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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

Day v. City of Indianapolis

380 F. Supp. 3d 812 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · May 13, 2019

Qualified immunity shields public officials from civil liability for acts done in their official capacity, insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights to which a reasonable … The law has clearly established this conduct as violative and therefore precludes the officers from qualified immunity.

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

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.

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

Rico L. Mitchell v. Lt. Smith

10 F.4th 1226 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 26, 2021

We review de novo the district court’s decision to deny qualified immunity on a motion to dismiss, accepting the factual allegations in the complaint as true 1 The district court also denied qualified immunity to a fourth … So to defeat a qualified immunity defense, a plaintiff must establish two things: (1) that officials violated a federal statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that their conduct was clearly established as unlawful at

Belanger v. Blum

628 F. Supp. 2d 260 · District Court, D. Connecticut · Jun 10, 2009

Qualified immunity protects the state defendants to the extent that the'ir conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. … “Law is not ‘clearly established’ for purposes of qualified immunity by district court opinions, but by the decisions of circuit courts or the Supreme Court.” Cipes, 386 F.Supp.2d at 42 .