Case law

Hebert v. State

165 Vt. 557 · Supreme Court of Vermont · Apr 18, 1996

Under federal law, the doctrine of qualified immunity shields public officials “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a … In Hall , for example, the court held that “[i]t was clearly established in 1986 that police officers could not be deliberately indifferent to a detainee who is in need of medical attention because of a mental illness or

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.

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.

Felak v. United States

677 F. Supp. 606 · District Court, D. Minnesota · Jan 11, 1988

The complaint does not specifically allege facts which show a violation of a clearly established right and plaintiff has not submitted a responsive memorandum to the summary judgment motion. … Therefore, the defendants are entitled to summary judgment on the basis of 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.

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)

Kenneth R. Henderson v. Les Munn, in His Individual Capacity

439 F.3d 497 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Feb 28, 2006

“The question of what was known to a person who might be shielded by qualified immunity is reviewable, to determine if the known facts would inform a reasonable actor that his actions violate an established legal standard … Officer Munn’s Liability on Excessive Force Claim Qualified immunity protects a government official from liability in a section 1983 action unless the official’s conduct violated a clearly established constitutional or statutory

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.

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 .

Aucoin v. Haney

306 F.3d 268 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Oct 1, 2002

to support Haney politically in his campaign for District Attorney; if the law was not clearly established, then the district court erred, and Haney is entitled to qualified immunity and the dismissal of the complaint … Haney therefore is entitled to qualified immunity.

Tonisha via v. Sandra Lagrand, a Dcp Investigator, in Her Individual Capacity

469 F.3d 618 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Nov 17, 2006

See Jones, 425 F.3d at 460 (holding that a defendant is entitled to qualified immunity if the alleged constitutional right was not clearly established at the time of the alleged violation). … was not yet clearly established at the time of the investigation of Via.”

Ali v. Reno

237 F.3d 591 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jan 10, 2001

Clearly, her journey back to Syria and then to the United States did not constitute flight from persecution. … Furthermore, she clearly established significant ties in Denmark, even though she did not reside in that country for an extended length of time. 1 *596 In addition, the Danish authorities’ declaration that they are no longer

Marcello v. Maine

489 F. Supp. 2d 70 · District Court, D. Maine · Apr 6, 2007

The First Circuit’s three-step approach to qualified immunity claims asks: (I) whether the claimant has alleged the deprivation of an actual constitutional right; (2) whether the right was clearly established at the time … The second step of the qualified immunity analysis “deals with fair warning; it asks whether the law was clearly established at the time of the constitutional violation.”

Ramirez v. Hempstead Union Free School District Board of Education

33 F. Supp. 3d 158 · District Court, E.D. New York · Jul 16, 2014

The doctrine of qualified immunity “protects public officials from liability for civil damages when ... the defendant’s action did not violate clearly established law, or ... it was objectively reasonable for the defendant … For a right to be “clearly established” for purposes of qualified immunity, “it is sufficient if decisions of the Supreme Court or of the appropriate circuit have defined the contours of the right with reasonable specificity

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.