Case law

Larry Hope v. Mark Pelzer, Gene McClaran

240 F.3d 975 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Feb 14, 2001

’s qualified immunity analysis. … Public officials are entitled to qualified immunity from monetary damages if “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”

Thomas v. Harrisburg City Police Department

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 15, 2021

for purposes of qualified immunity.” … a defendant’s conduct at issue did not violate a “clearly established” right.

Mellott v. Sprague

334 F. Supp. 3d 916 · District Court, C.D. Illinois · Jun 15, 2017

In order to defeat a defense of qualified immunity, Plaintiff must demonstrate that: (1) Defendants conduct violated his constitutional rights; and (2) the violated rights were clearly established at the time of the alleged … This right had been clearly established since, at the latest, 1990.

Cavanaugh v. Bartelt

178 F. Supp. 3d 819 · District Court, D. Nebraska · Apr 12, 2016

Qualified immunity shields public officials performing discretionary functions from liability for conduct that does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have … In determining whether an official is entitled to qualified immunity, the Court asks (1) whether the facts alleged establish a violation of a constitutional or statutory right and (2) whether that right *833 was clearly established

Lisa Price v. Montgomery County

72 F.4th 711 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 5, 2023

To overcome a defendant’s qualified immunity defense, a plaintiff must plausibly allege that (1) the official violated a federal statutory or constitutional right, and (2) the right was “clearly established” at the time of … Miller has neither proven that violating a court order constitutes a constitutional violation, nor that such a violation is clearly established. As a result, Craycraft is entitled to qualified immunity.

Fenner v. Suthers

194 F. Supp. 2d 1146 · District Court, D. Colorado · Apr 2, 2002

to exist, has not heretofore been clearly established. … Defendants argue that the case must still be dismissed, because they are entitled to qualified immunity for another reason: there is simply no clearly established constitutional right to treatment for hepatitis C.

Fisher v. City of Las Cruces

584 F.3d 888 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Oct 19, 2009

entitled to qualified immunity.” … Clearly Established Law The next question is whether the right at issue was clearly established at the time of the alleged unlawful incident.

Morabito ex rel. Estate of Morabito v. Holmes

628 F. App'x 353 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Oct 7, 2015

We have “jurisdiction over the legal question of qualified immunity, i.e., whether a given set of facts violates clearly established law.” Harris v. City of Circleville, 583 F.3d 356, 364 (6th Cir.2009) (citing Kirby v. … The qualified immunity inquiry for the denial of medical care similarly looks to see whether there was a violation of clearly established constitutional rights.

Ervin v. James

874 S.W.2d 713 · Court of Appeals of Texas · Mar 10, 1994

Cronen seemed to dismiss, out-of-hand, the idea of proving qualified immunity by summary judgment proof. We believe that such an approach would render the qualified immunity defense illusory. … We conclude that Ervin and Lilley established their right to summary judgment as a matter of law on their affirmative defense of qualified official immunity.

Doe v. Groody

361 F.3d 232 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Mar 19, 2004

The four Task Force officers appeal the denial of summary judgment based on qualified immunity. II. … But the immunity is forfeited if an officer’s conduct violates “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Wilson v.

Eggleton v. Gluch

717 F. Supp. 1230 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Jul 13, 1989

I conclude that qualified immunity does not apply in either instance because the law was clearly defined in each of these areas. … action is a violation) violates a clearly established right.

Larsen v. State Employees' Retirement System

553 F. Supp. 2d 403 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · May 15, 2008

“Qualified immunity shields state officials from suit when their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Burella v. … “If no constitutional right would have been violated were the allegations established, there is no necessity for further inquiries concerning qualified immunity.

Lilly v. Lewiston-Porter Central School District

853 F. Supp. 2d 346 · District Court, W.D. New York · Dec 20, 2011

qualified immunity did not apply. … Then we consider if the violated right was clearly established at the time of the conduct....

Kathleen A. Walsh v. Cuyahoga County, and Terry Allan

424 F.3d 510 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Sep 21, 2005

Allan was not entitled to qualified immunity because Ms. Walsh’s right to a pre-termination hearing was clearly established by Cleveland Board of Education v. … Ill 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

White v. Martin

26 F. Supp. 2d 385 · District Court, D. Connecticut · Oct 19, 1998

In a section 1983 action, qualified immunity shields an official sued in his individual capacity “from liability for civil damages insofar as [his] conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 526 , 105 S.Ct. 2806 , 86 L.Ed.2d 411 (1985), the Supreme Court held that “[ujnless plaintiffs allegations state a claim of violation of clearly established law, a defendant pleading qualified immunity

Johnnie Savory v. Allen Andrews

Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Aug 14, 2026

The officers in this case are entitled to qualified immunity only if their interrogation techniques did not violate Savory’s clearly established right to due process. Rivas-Villegas v. … Regardless, focusing on this difference is too myopic an approach given that Savory need only present similar—not identical—cases to satisfy qualified immunity’s “clearly established” requirement.

Kevin Lamar Adams Bobbie Adams v. City of Auburn Hills, a Municipal Corporation, John Backstrom

336 F.3d 515 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 21, 2003

Qualified Immunity As the Supreme Court explained in Harlow v. … Whether a defendant is entitled to qualified immunity depends on: “(1) whether the facts taken in the light most favorable to plaintiff could establish a constitutional violation; (2) whether the right was a ‘clearly established

Fitzpatrick v. City of Dearborn Heights

105 F. App'x 733 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 15, 2004

STANDARD OF REVIEW We review de novo a district court’s denial of qualified immunity. Dickerson v. McClellan, 101 F.3d 1151 , 1157 (6th Cir. 1996). DISCUSSION A qualified immunity analysis requires a two-step process. … Simakas are not entitled to qualified immunity.

E-Z Mart Stores, Inc. v. Kirksey

885 F.2d 476 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Sep 19, 1989

The officers are entitled to qualified immunity “unless their actions violated clearly established law.” Garionis, 827 F.2d at 308 (citations omitted). … Ordinarily, a qualified immunity defense will fail if, as here, the law was clearly established at the time the action occurred, “since a reasonably competent public official should know the law governing his conduct.”

Raymond D. Jackson v. Duncan A. McIntosh David Victorino

90 F.3d 330 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jul 18, 1996

The doctors moved for summary judgment on the ground of qualified immunity. The district court denied the motion. The doctors appeal. … ANALYSIS The doctors contend that they are entitled to qualified immunity because there was no clearly established law requiring *332 them to provide a kidney transplant to a prisoner on dialysis.