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.

Morris Rodgers v. John Jabe, Jerry Hofbauer, and Robin Pratt, in Their Individual and Official Capacities

43 F.3d 1082 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jan 12, 1995

were entitled to qualified immunity because the amount of exercise to which prisoners had a right was not clearly established at the time of the defendants’ actions. … Most importantly, the magistrate judge denied qualified immunity because the relevant law was “clearly established” by August 29, 1991. Hofbauer and Pratt objected to the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation.

Chrissy F., by Her Next Friend and Guardian Ad Litem Donna Medley v. Mississippi Department of Public Welfare

925 F.2d 844 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Mar 8, 1991

defendant violated clearly established law. … to qualified immunity.

Mee v. Ortega

967 F.2d 423 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jun 18, 1992

Accordingly, “summary judgment in favor of a defendant seeking qualified immunity is appropriate only if the constitutional standards governing the challenged conduct were not clearly established.” Rex v. … Ortega on the basis of qualified immunity. “[T]he plaintiff cannot simply identify a clearly established right in the abstract and allege that the defendant has violated it.” Hilliard v.

Good v. Dauphin County Social Services For Children And Youth

891 F.2d 1087 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Dec 15, 1989

alleged a violation of a clearly established legal right. … action is a violation) violates a clearly established right.

Estate of Rudy Escob v. Brian Marti

702 F.3d 388 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Dec 13, 2012

When analyzing a qualified immunity defense, courts consider whether the facts alleged demonstrate a constitu- tional violation, and whether the constitutional right was clearly established. Pearson v. … The district court granted judgment as a matter of law on qualified immunity grounds to the defendant com- manders on the second prong, finding that Escobedo did not have a clearly established constitutional right to be free

Vincent v. City of Sulphur

28 F. Supp. 3d 651 · District Court, W.D. Louisiana · Oct 21, 2014

In order to overcome a claim of qualified immunity, a plaintiff must plead facts showing “(1) that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was ‘clearly established’ at the time of … Was the Right Clearly Established?

Nolin v. Town of Springville

45 F. Supp. 2d 894 · District Court, N.D. Alabama · Mar 22, 1999

“For the law to be clearly established to the point that qualified immunity does not apply, the law must have earlier been developed in such a concrete and factually defined context to make it obvious to all *907 reasonable … In Lewis , the Supreme Court clarified the rationale behind resolving the substantive issues in a qualified immunity case before addressing the question of whether the law was clearly established at the time of the violation

Tamela Muir v. Decatur County, Iowa

917 F.3d 1050 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Mar 8, 2019

established federal rights.’” … right was clearly established at the time of the defendant’s alleged misconduct.”

Lawny Lamar Browning v. Richard A. Vernon, Director Ron McKinsey

44 F.3d 818 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jan 10, 1995

Vernon and McKinsey contend that they are entitled to qualified immunity from damages because the allegations in the complaint do not constitute violations of a clearly established liberty interest protected by the Due Process … clearly established?

Michael C. v. Gresbach

526 F.3d 1008 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · May 19, 2008

The defendants responded that their conduct did not violate any clearly established constitutional rights, and that therefore they were protected by qualified immunity. Both parties moved for summary judgment. … If the right was “clearly established,” the official is not entitled to qualified immunity from suit. 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.

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.

Brown v. City of Oneonta

106 F.3d 1125 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Feb 14, 1997

We hold that because it was unclear whether FERPA’s “emergency exception” allowed release of the list, no clearly established right of plaintiffs was infringed and appellants are entitled to qualified immunity from claims … The function of qualified immunity is to shield from suit those public officials who must make such decisions where, as here, the law is not clear, and no “clearly established right” is infringed.

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

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

Casteel v. Pieschek

3 F.3d 1050 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Aug 23, 1993

Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, “public officials performing discretionary functions are protected against suits from damages unless their' conduct violates clearly established statutory or constitutional rights … To determine the applicability of qualified immunity, the defendants’ actions must be compared to what a reasonable official would believe was required in light of the clearly established legal rules regarding county jail

Mulero-Carrillo v. Roman-Hernandez

790 F.3d 99 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Jun 17, 2015

right was "clearly established" at the time of the alleged violation. … AFFIRMED. 5 The district court also decided the qualified immunity issue by finding that there was no plausible deprivation of a clearly established constitutional right. -18-

Lelieve v. Oroso

846 F. Supp. 2d 1294 · District Court, S.D. Florida · Feb 14, 2012

Therefore, the burden shifts to Lelieve to demonstrate that Belfort violated a clearly established statutory or constitutional right to overcome the qualified-immunity defense. B. Alleged Constitutional Violations 1. … In sum, Lelieve has not met his burden to demonstrate that Belfort violated a clearly established statutory or constitutional right to overcome the qualified-immunity defense.

Bagg v. University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston

726 S.W.2d 582 · Court of Appeals of Texas · Jan 8, 1987

However, to protect officials from groundless section 1983 suits, the federal courts have recognized what is known as qualified good faith immunity. … “[Government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a