Case law

Ernest Onderik v. Joe P. Morgan

897 F.2d 204 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Oct 10, 1989

Because the defendants did not violate clearly established federal law or knowingly anticipate that their conduct would give rise to constitutional claims, defendants retain the protections of qualified immunity. … To lose the protections of qualified immunity, the federal officials must have violated clearly established law. See Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 528 , 105 S.Ct. 2806, 2816 , 86 L.Ed.2d 411 (1985).

State v. McInnes

Ohio Court of Appeals · Sep 10, 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.

Branch International Services, Inc. v. Budde

890 F. Supp. 659 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Jun 15, 1995

Alleging the violation of a broad constitutional right is insufficient to establish the violation of a clearly established right for purposes of overcoming qualified immunity. … Plaintiffs argue, in their response to defendants’ motion to dismiss, that the right to access to courts was a clearly established constitutional right, and therefore the qualified immunity defense is not applicable to this

Bryan Santini v. Joseph Fuentes

795 F.3d 410 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Aug 4, 2015

Background: Qualified Immunity Santini argues on appeal that the District Court erred in finding that the Trooper Defendants were entitled to qualified immunity with respect to his federal claims. … The doctrine of qualified immunity shields government officials who perform discretionary functions “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional

Dockery v. Tucker

73 F. Supp. 2d 224 · District Court, E.D. New York · Sep 24, 1998

As discussed above, Tucker is entitled to qualified immunity if plaintiffs rights were not clearly established, see Mitchell v. … As discussed above, defendant Tucker is entitled to qualified immunity if plaintiffs rights were not clearly established, see Mitchell v.

Zann v. Whidby

904 F. Supp. 2d 1229 · District Court, N.D. Alabama · Oct 24, 2012

To avoid summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity, the plaintiff must show that “(1) the defendant violated a constitutional right, and (2) this right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation … Was the Right Clearly Established?

Ross v. Beckham County Board of County Commissioners

61 F. App'x 620 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Mar 31, 2003

able to prove, but whether certain given facts showed a violation of “clearly established” law. … “The doctrine of qualified immunity shields individual government officials performing discretionary functions ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or

Young v. Martin

51 F. App'x 509 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Oct 21, 2002

a violation of clearly established law.” … Qualified Immunity 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

Kennedy v. Lehman

328 F. App'x 16 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · May 6, 2009

A grant of qualified immunity allows public officials to be “shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … Be *20 cause the Individual Defendants did not violate a First Amendment right clearly-established as of 2002, we conclude that they are entitled to qualified immunity, and the district court must be reversed.

Goodrich v. Everett

193 F. App'x 551 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 24, 2006

The defendants moved for summary judgment on the ground that they were protected by qualified immunity. The district court applied the two-prong test for qualified immunity set forth in Saucier v. … “When the defense of qualified immunity is raised, it is the plaintiffs burden to prove that the state officials are not entitled to qualified immunity.” Ciminillo v. Streicher, 434 F.3d 461, 466 (6th Cir.2005).

Campbell v. Erie Township

133 F. Supp. 2d 953 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Mar 7, 2001

Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 638 , 107 S.Ct. 3034 , 97 L.Ed.2d 523 (1987) A government official is not entitled to qualified immunity if his conduct results in the violation of a clearly established statutory or constitutional … To withstand a motion for summary judgment based on a claim of qualified immunity in the Sixth Circuit, a plaintiff must establish two things.

Chris Veneklase v. City of Fargo

78 F.3d 1264 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Mar 6, 1996

Because we agree that plaintiffs did not have a clearly established right after Frisby to picket as they did on October 10, 1991, we hold that the defendant officers are entitled to qualified immunity. … Although the qualified immunity issue before us concerns whether plaintiffs had a clearly established right on October 10, 1991, to picket as they did in front of the administrator's home, we note that Madsen left unresolved

Stephen G. Loftus v. Ester Clark-Moore

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 13, 2012

The district court ruled that Clark-Moore and Ferguson were entitled to qualified immunity because neither social worker had violated a clearly established federal right of Loftus or his children. … Ferguson is entitled to qualified immunity because the threats that she allegedly made did not violate any clearly established federal right.

Browning v. Snead

886 F. Supp. 547 · District Court, S.D. West Virginia · May 17, 1995

Doory, 14 F.3d 993, 995 (4th Cir.1994) our Court of Appeals discussed generally the application of qualified immunity as follows: “Qualified immunity shields a governmental official from liability for civil monetary damages … if the officer’s ‘conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’

Amtreco, Inc. v. O.H. Materials, Inc.

802 F. Supp. 440 · District Court, M.D. Georgia · Oct 13, 1992

for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. … Assuming that plaintiffs had constitutional rights protecting them from the alleged wrongful conduct of the federal defendants, these rights are obviously not clearly established.

Pleasant v. Lovell

654 F. Supp. 1082 · District Court, D. Colorado · Feb 12, 1987

Alternatively, defendants contend that they are entitled to qualified immunity because they did not violate clearly established constitutional rights which a reasonable investigator would have known. … Under Harlow , then, qualified immunity is established if it is proven that there was no violation of clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.

Kathryn M. Zorzi v. County of Putnam, Philip H. Hansen, Former Sheriff of Putnam County, Donald Maggi, Sheriff of Putnam County

30 F.3d 885 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Aug 26, 1994

“The defense of qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … Rather, he claims that he is entitled to qualified immunity because count two does not set forth a substantive due process violation, or at least not one that is clearly established.

Blouin v. Spitzer

356 F.3d 348 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Feb 2, 2004

The court did, however, determine that they were entitled to qualified immunity, because "plaintiff has failed to allege a violation of a clearly established right. … Qualified Immunity 34 We now consider qualified immunity, which shields a government official acting in an official capacity from suit for damages under § 1983 unless the official "violated clearly established rights of which

Moore v. Tri-City Hospital Authority

696 F. Supp. 1496 · District Court, N.D. Georgia · Jun 27, 1988

Gable, 823 F.2d 723, 733 (3d Cir.1987) (qualified immunity defense rejected in patronage dismissal of a policeman because “as of 1982 the law was ‘clearly established’ that a public employee could not be demoted in retaliation … Qualified Immunity (6) Whether defendants are entitled to qualified immunity in their individual capacities on either of plaintiff’s claims?

Sanford v. Russell

381 F. Supp. 3d 905 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · May 15, 2019

Fabrication of Evidence Claim The defendants argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity on the plaintiff's fabricated evidence claim because their conduct did not violate any clearly established law at the time of … Once the qualified immunity defense is raised, "the plaintiff must show that (1) the defendant violated a constitutional right and (2) that right was clearly established." McDonald v.