Case law

Baljinder Singh SANGHA, Petitioner, v. IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE, Respondent

103 F.3d 1482 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jan 9, 1997

This section gives the Attorney General the discretion to grant asylum to aliens who qualify as “refugees.” … Applicants can no longer establish that their persecution was “on account of’ political opinion by inference, unless the inference is one that is clearly to be drawn from facts in evidence.

Mincieli v. Bruder

914 F. Supp. 512 · District Court, S.D. Florida · Mar 7, 1994

Mineieli can meet this burden by demonstrating that Bruder’s actions violated clearly established constitutional law. Lowe v. Aldridge, 958 F.2d 1565, 1570 (11th Cir.1992). … than on qualified immunity. 6 .

Jennings v. Jones

479 F.3d 110 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Mar 7, 2007

Prong Two: Whether the Law Was Clearly Established The second prong of the qualified immunity analysis asks "whether the constitutional right . . . was 'clearly established' at the time of the incident such … established' when assessing claims of qualified immunity" (quoting Medina v.

Brown v. City of Huntsville, Ala.

608 F.3d 724 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jun 7, 2010

Qualified Immunity “Qualified immunity offers complete protection for government officials sued in their individual capacities if their conduct ‘does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights … Courts utilize a two-part framework to evaluate qualified immunity claims.14 One inquiry in a qualified immunity analysis is whether the plaintiff’s allegations, if true, establish a constitutional violation. Hope v.

Kane v. Lewis

989 F. Supp. 2d 468 · District Court, D. Maryland · Dec 20, 2013

However, the principle itself — as well as its purposes to protect the safety of the officers and the occupants— could not be more clearly established. … Of course, as to plaintiff's state law claim, there is no qualified immunity at all. .

Bomar v. City of Pontiac

643 F.3d 458 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 1, 2011

The Supreme Court has distinguished between denials of qualified immunity at the summary judgment stage that are based on the district court’s “determination about pre-existing clearly established law” and, on the other hand … But qualified immunity is Main’s defense on the merits.

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.

Hucker v. City of Beaumont

144 F. Supp. 2d 696 · District Court, E.D. Texas · May 18, 2001

When a defendant pleads qualified immunity, the court must first determine whether the plaintiff has alleged a clearly established constitutional right. See Sie-gert v. … Qualified immunity is an affirmative defense requiring the defendant to both plead and establish his entitlement to immunity. See Tamez 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.

Stodghill v. Wellston School District

512 F.3d 472 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jan 9, 2008

The SAB members moved to dismiss the claim on the basis of qualified immunity. … The SAB members sought qualified immunity.

Crystal Thompson v. Andrew Dill

930 F.3d 1008 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jul 23, 2019

A government official is entitled to qualified immunity on a § 1983 claim unless (1) "the facts shown by the plaintiff make out a violation of a constitutional or statutory right," and (2) the "right was clearly established … When the denial is based on qualified immunity, however, we have limited jurisdiction to decide the purely legal issue of whether the alleged facts support a claim of violation of clearly established law. See Raines v.

Kiser v. Garrett

67 F.3d 1166 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Oct 20, 1995

In September 1993, the child protective services functions of DHS were constitutional rights were not clearly established at the time in issue, the appellees are shielded by qualified immunity. … Louisiana's conclusion that the right to family integrity is not clearly established.

Davis v. Hodgkiss

11 F.4th 329 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Aug 25, 2021

The first such determination is “that a certain course of conduct would, as a matter of law, be objectively unreasonable in light of clearly established law.” Id. … The officer will be entitled to qualified immunity if no constitutional violation occurred or if the conduct “did not violate law clearly established at the time.” Id.

Greene v. Cabral

323 F. Supp. 3d 96 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 15, 2018

"An official sued under § 1983 is entitled to qualified immunity unless it is shown that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right that was 'clearly established' at the time of the challenged conduct." … For a right to have been clearly established, such that qualified immunity does not shield an official from liability, "the right's contours [must have been] sufficiently definite that any reasonable official *107 in the

John Doe, a Minor, (Born 01/28/90) by His Next Friend Jane Doe Jane Doe, Individually v. State of Hawaii Department of Education, and David Keala

334 F.3d 906 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jun 30, 2003

ANALYSIS A public official is not entitled to qualified immunity if his conduct violates “ ‘clearly established constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’ ” Koch, 96 F.3d at 1301 (quoting Harlow … If so, the defendant is entitled to qualified immunity only if the constitutional right that he allegedly violated was not clearly established. Id. A.

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.

Ryan v. Burlington County

889 F.2d 1286 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Nov 21, 1989

The Freeholders raise two defenses against Ryan’s suit: absolute immunity and qualified immunity. … , then those officials must be held accountable for instances where their actions violate clearly established rights.

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

Wayne Wright v. Charles Beck

981 F.3d 719 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Dec 1, 2020

City of Anaheim, 343 F.3d 1052, 1060 (9th Cir. 2003) (“In the absence of binding precedent, a court should look to whatever decisional law is available to ascertain whether the law is clearly established for qualified immunity … We thus conclude that the due process right to notice, as alleged by Wright, was clearly established and, as a result, Edwards is not entitled to qualified immunity.  WRIGHT V.

Villarreal v. City of Laredo

17 F.4th 532 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Nov 1, 2021

The district court dismissed her First Amendment infringement claim against various officials on qualified immunity grounds, finding that any violation was not clearly established at the time. … of clearly established law.