Case law

Rita Johnson v. City of Saginaw

980 F.3d 497 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Nov 13, 2020

Analysis Cabello and Stemple appeal the denial of qualified immunity.3 “This court reviews a district court’s denial of summary judgment based on qualified-immunity grounds de novo.” Quigley, 707 F.3d at 679. … “An assertion of qualified immunity may be overcome if the defendants violated a clearly established constitutional right.” United Pet Supply, Inc. v. City of Chattanooga, 768 F.3d 464, 484-85 (6th Cir. 2014).

Policky v. City of Seward, Neb.

433 F. Supp. 2d 1013 · District Court, D. Nebraska · May 25, 2006

Officer Shook Qualified immunity protects government officials from the costs of trial and the burdens of broad discovery unless their discretionary acts violated clearly established statutory or constitutional rights. … “[T]o withstand a motion for summary judgment on qualified-immunity grounds, a plaintiff must (1) assert a violation of a constitutional right; (2) demonstrate that the alleged right is clearly established; and (3) raise

Hall v. Ryan

957 F.2d 402 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Feb 28, 1992

Judge Baker noted that qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions from civil liability if their actions do not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … Gamble, 429 U.S. 97 , 97 S.Ct. 285 , 50 L.Ed.2d 251 , the standard of conduct imposed on defendants with respect to the care of people in custody was clearly established, so that the police officers' qualified immunity defense

Antoinette Wonsey v. City of Chicago

940 F.3d 394 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Oct 15, 2019

“Qualified immunity attaches when an official’s con- duct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitu- tional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Id. (citations omitted). … Wonsey offers no contrary argument, and she does not point to any violation of statutory or constitu- tional rights, much less clearly established ones. So qualified immunity cloaks defendants’ actions on June 9.

State v. McInnes

2026 Ohio 734 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Mar 5, 2026

“The doctrine of qualified immunity generally shields public officials performing discretionary functions from liability for civil damages to the extent that their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … to qualified immunity.

Smiley v. Alabama Department of Transportation

778 F. Supp. 2d 1283 · District Court, M.D. Alabama · Mar 30, 2011

Saucier, 533 U.S. at 201, 121 S.Ct. 2151 . 14 Qualified immunity is applicable unless the officials conduct violated a clearly established federal right. Anderson v. … The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals has repeatedly held, in the qualified immunity context, that the right to be free from employment discrimination on the basis of race is clearly established. See, e.g., Rioux v.

Harris v. Mississippi Valley State University

899 F. Supp. 1561 · District Court, N.D. Mississippi · Sep 22, 1995

In examining the individual Defendants’ claims of qualified immunity on summary judgment, the Court in this case must: first inquire whether [Plaintiff] has alleged the violation of a clearly established constitutional right … has not demonstrated that such a constitutional right was “clearly established” for the purpose of refuting Defendants’ qualified immunity defense. 20 When the affirmative defense of qualified immunity is raised, the Plaintiff

Hernandez v. Conde

442 F. Supp. 2d 1131 · District Court, D. Kansas · Jul 24, 2006

A public official performing a discretionary function enjoys qualified immunity in a civil action for damages, provided his or her conduct does not violate clearly established federal statutory or constitutional rights of … On the other hand, if a violation has been shown, the next step in the qualified immunity sequence is to ask whether the constitutional right was clearly established. Id.

Vega-Santiago v. Ortiz-Velez

405 F. Supp. 2d 170 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Aug 17, 2005

Saucier outlines the two steps of the qualified immunity analysis: (1) if a constitutional right was violated and (2) whether the right was clearly established. … In short, to set aside the buckler of qualified immunity ‘the right the official is alleged to have violated must have been ‘clearly established’ in a more particularized, and hence more relevant, sense.’

BK v. Toumpas

909 F. Supp. 2d 60 · District Court, D. New Hampshire · Nov 14, 2012

“Qualified immunity shields ... state officials from money damages unless a plaintiff pleads facts showing (1) that the official violated a constitutional or statutory right and (2) that the right was clearly established … In any event, a single decision from another district court does not provide the "fair warning” of clearly established law necessary to overcome the defendants' qualified immunity defense. See Lynch v.

Scarpa v. Ponte

638 F. Supp. 1019 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jul 2, 1986

Third, Scarpa claims that defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity because his rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments were clearly established at the time he was wrongly punished. 2 A. … In King, the First Circuit Court of Appeals took into account the defendant’s violation of clearly established prison regulations in denying his qualified immunity defense.

Wallace v. City of Shelby

968 F. Supp. 1204 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · May 30, 1997

The Supreme Court held that, with respect to motions for summary judgment based on qualified immunity, “the judge may appropriately determine, not only the currently applicable law, but whether that law was clearly established … Plaintiffs assert that the use of excessive force is itself a violation of a clearly established constitutional right in “cases dealing with qualified immunity”. (Plaintiffs’ Opp. at 7).

Monks v. Marlinga

732 F. Supp. 749 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Feb 14, 1990

Thus, neither is dispositive of the current qualified immunity issue. … in fact is not clearly established today.

Hamrick v. City of Eustace

732 F. Supp. 1390 · District Court, E.D. Texas · Mar 19, 1990

Those Courts go on to reason that if the law which the defendant is alleged to have violated is clearly established, then the qualified immunity defense must fail. Id. … If the law is not clearly established, the defendant is immune. Id.

Spivey v. Elliott

41 F.3d 1497 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jan 11, 1995

The defendants are entitled to qualified immunity if it is determined that the legal precedents do not reveal that the defendants violated "clearly established … The opinion is fully reaffirmed, however, on the holding that there was no constitutional duty clearly established at the time of the sexual assault, so the defendant officials were properly entitled to qualified immunity

Bailey v. United States Marshal Service

584 F. Supp. 2d 128 · District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 3, 2008

Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, “government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … “If no constitutional right would have been violated were the allegations established, there is no necessity for further inquiries concerning qualified immunity.” Saucier, 533 U.S. at 201, 121 S.Ct. 2151 .

Gary Vickery, Cross-Appellee v. Janell Jones, William Pearman and Kirk Brown, and Saline County Republican Central Committee and William Roberts

100 F.3d 1334 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Nov 22, 1996

Second, if so, was the unconstitutionality clearly established or are the state defendants entitled to qualified immunity? Third, did [the plaintiff] suffer an injury by virtue of the defendants’ actions? … Qualified immunity shields government officials who are performing discretionary functions from liability for civil damages “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights

Killebrew v. City of Greenwood, Miss.

988 F. Supp. 1010 · District Court, N.D. Mississippi · Nov 3, 1997

If so, the court must then decide whether the constitutional right allegedly violated was clearly established at the time of the events in question. Id. … There can certainly be no dispute that the right to equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment was clearly established at the time of the events in question.

Ashfaq v. Anderson

603 F. Supp. 2d 936 · District Court, N.D. Texas · Mar 16, 2009

Anderson’s Motion to Dismiss (doc. 10), on the basis of qualified immunity. … Ashfaq has failed to allege a deprivation of a clearly established constitutional right, Dr. Anderson is entitled to qualified immunity. Accordingly, Dr. Ashfaq’s § 1983 claim should be and hereby is DISMISSED.

Hamilton v. Leavy

322 F.3d 776 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Feb 28, 2003

Turning to the second prong of the qualified immunity defense, the District Court held that "Hamilton’s right to be protected from known risks was clearly established in August 5, 1992." … As we have previously explained, however, "to defeat qualified immunity it is not sufficient that the right at issue be clearly established as a general matter.