Case law

Frank Humphrey v. Norbert Staszak

148 F.3d 719 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jul 23, 1998

In the context of an arrest, qualified immunity “will shield a police officer from § 1983 liability if a reasonable officer could have believed [the plaintiffs arrest] to be lawful, in light of clearly established law and … CONCLUSION For these reasons and those stated by the Supreme Court and by us in our previous decisions, we hold that Officer Staszak did not violate a clearly established law and that he is entitled to qualified immunity,

Jamie Kirkpatrick v. County of Washoe

843 F.3d 784 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Dec 9, 2016

“Qualified immunity is no immunity at all if ‘clearly established’ law can simply be defined as the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures.” Sheehan, 135 S.Ct. at 1776 . … , established, and they, .are therefore entitled to qualified immunity..on this claim.

Grawey v. Drury

567 F.3d 302 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · May 28, 2009

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 … Clearly Established Constitutional Right The next step of our qualified immunity analysis is whether the alleged violations involved a constitutional right that was clearly established at the time of the alleged misconduct

Citizens Committee for Faraday Wood v. John v. Lindsay, Mayor of the City of New York

507 F.2d 1065 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Apr 28, 1975

Williams, 397 U.S. 471 , 90 S.Ct. 1153 , 25 L.Ed.2d 491 (1970), plaintiffs must establish that the city’s action impinges on a suspect class in order to qualify for the stricter compelling state interest standard. … Such relief would clearly be inappropriate. *1070 Also, in Lackawanna the record clearly established that the city’s actions had been motivated by improper racial considerations. Kennedy Park Homes Assn. v.

Alejandro Luna, Plaintiff-Appellee-Cross-Appellant v. Jose Pico and Allen Cave, Defendants-Appellants-Cross-Appellees

356 F.3d 481 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jan 30, 2004

The Doctrine of Qualified Immunity The doctrine of qualified immunity protects state officials from civil liability for actions performed in the course of their duties if “their conduct does not violate clearly established … established” for the purpose of future qualified immunity cases involving similar fact patterns.

Sloley v. VanBramer

945 F.3d 30 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Dec 12, 2019

However, that is not the only way in 14 which a right may be “clearly established” for qualified immunity purposes. … (“[Q]ualified immunity clearly established for purposes of qualified immunity.

Estate of Clark v. Walker

865 F.3d 544 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jul 26, 2017

Step 2: Clearly Established Law We do have jurisdiction to review the second qualified immunity step: whether Clark’s asserted rights were clearly established at the time of his suicide. … First, he argues that it is “doubtful” whether circuit precedent can clearly establish law for purposes of qualified immunity. He cites two Supreme Court cases, but both cases leave this question unanswered.

Vaughn v. Greene County

438 F.3d 845 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Feb 17, 2006

did not specify the disputed facts on which it relied, thereby making it difficult for this court to "know what set of facts to assume when [we] answer[ ] the purely legal question about `clearly established' law." … Individual Liability of Sheriff Langston 12 "Qualified immunity protects a government official from liability in a [section] 1983 claim unless his or her conduct violated a clearly established statutory or constitutional

Pitt, Christopher v. DC

Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jun 26, 2007

Hust, 477 F.3d 1070, 1079 (9th Cir. 2007) (“Whether the right at issue in a claim of qualified immunity is clearly established . . . is a pure question of law . . . .”); Williams v. Ala. … immunity on these claims because this right was not “clearly established” at the time of the actions at issue in this case.

Brown v. Frey

889 F.2d 159 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Nov 7, 1989

Trickey did not violate Brown’s clearly established right to call witnesses at the February 27 contraband hearing. As a result, they are entitled to qualified immunity and are immune from liability. … Trickey are immune from liability under the doctrine of qualified good faith immunity because they did not violate any clearly established constitutional right.

Surat v. Klamser

52 F.4th 1261 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Nov 9, 2022

The district court then concluded Officer Klamser was not entitled to qualified immunity because clearly established law would have put a reasonable officer on notice “that an officer may not use a takedown maneuver on … Surat’s constitutional right to be free from excessive force, it erred in denying him qualified immunity because that right was not clearly established at the time of the incident.

Larry D. Lomaz Pacific Financial Services of America, Inc. v. William A. Hennosy

151 F.3d 493 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 29, 1998

secured by the Constitution,” 42 U.S.C. § 1983 , is limited by two recognized exceptions: qualified immunity and absolute immunity. … The former, the most common type of official immunity, subjects officials to liability for the performance of discretionary functions only when their conduct violates “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights

Swain v. Roe

Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Jun 26, 1997

Qualified Immunity _____________________ Defendants assert that they are, in any event, entitled to qualified immunity from suit. There are two prongs to the qualified immunity analysis. … . _________ . . in 1977, [there was] a 'clearly established' Fourth Amendment right to be free of unreasonable searches.").

Harris v. Clay County, MS

47 F.4th 271 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Aug 24, 2022

It granted Huffman qualified immunity, concluding that Harris did not prove that the sheriff’s actions violated clearly established law. … The second is whether that right is “clearly established.” Id.

Stanton v. Sims

571 U.S. 3 · Supreme Court of the United States · Nov 4, 2013

immunity because no clearly established law put him on notice that his conduct was unconstitutional. … qualified immunity precisely because the law regarding warrantless entry in hot pursuit of a fleeing misdemean- ant is not clearly established.

Hartline v. Gallo

546 F.3d 95 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Oct 8, 2008

She further contends that because the strip search violated clearly established law, the individual officers are not entitled to qualified immunity, and that because the search was conducted pursuant to municipal policy, … preclude the defense of qualified immunity ..., we cannot say on the somewhat unique facts before us that it is clearly established that no ‘reasonable suspicion’ justified a strip-search in this case.”

Armando Villanueva v. State of California

986 F.3d 1158 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jan 28, 2021

CLEVELAND of federal law that was clearly established at the time,” Pauluk v. Savage, 836 F.3d 1117, 1121 (9th Cir. 2016). “We review the district court’s conclusions regarding qualified immunity de novo.” … However, because it believed there was such division, it simply reasoned that the law was not clearly established and ruled for the officers on the basis of qualified immunity. Id. at 1213.

Merriman v. Walton

856 F.2d 1333 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Sep 7, 1988

The court characterized the question in terms of probable cause and an assertion of qualified immunity. … (albeit fact-specific) question whether a reasonable officer could have believed [the plaintiff's] warrantless [arrest] to be lawful, in light of clearly established law and the information the searching officers possessed

Harris v. District of Columbia

932 F.2d 10 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · May 10, 1991

This obligation, according to the court, was clearly established and appellants were therefore not entitled to qualified immunity. See id. at 17-19. … The concurrence also affords qualified immunity "on the additional ground that, even if the right was clearly established, the facts ... do not make out a violation of that right.” Concurring op. at 363.

Savard v. Rhode Island

338 F.3d 23 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Aug 4, 2003

The defendants in this case were granted qualified immunity because, according to the district court, the law did not "clearly establish" that reasonable suspicion was needed to strip search people arrested for non-violent … We believe the right of such a person to be free of such a search was 'clearly established' on October 21, 1986."); Weber, 804 F.2d at 803 (denying qualified immunity for defendants who performed suspicionless strip searches