Case law

Mammaro v. New Jersey Division of Child Protection & Permanency

814 F.3d 164 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Feb 19, 2016

Even if none exists, it may be possible that a “robust consensus of cases of persuasive authority” in the Court of Appeals could clearly establish a right for purposes of qualified immunity. Taylor v. … This is why caseworkers are protected by qualified immunity unless clearly established law puts them on notice that their conduct is a violation of the Constitution.

Cummings v. Dean

913 F.3d 1227 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jan 24, 2019

clearly-established federal law. … We agree with Director Dean that he did not violate clearly-established federal law and thus conclude that he is entitled to the defense of qualified immunity.

Rogers v. Hall

46 F.4th 308 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Aug 19, 2022

Thus, the district court held that Rogers failed to establish that the defendants’ conduct violated clearly established law, and therefore failed to rebut the defendants’ qualified immunity defense to his claim. … violate clearly established law.”

Coen v. Runner

854 F.2d 374 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Aug 16, 1988

On those claims the court granted judgment for Runner and Lassiter on qualified immunity grounds. … Qualified immunity is an affirmative defense that protects government officials from personal liability unless their actions violate clearly established law of which a reasonable person would have known. Harlow v.

Wilkins v. Moore

40 F.3d 954 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Nov 25, 1994

Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity. … Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 639-40 [ 107 S.Ct. 3034, 3038-39 , 97 L.Ed.2d 523 ] (1987) (official not entitled to qualified immunity if he violated "clearly established" right).

Pompeo v. Board of Regents of University of New Mexico

852 F.3d 973 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Mar 28, 2017

A To determine whether defendants are entitled to qualified immunity, a court must determine: (1) whether defendants’ conduct violated plaintiffs constitutional rights; and (2) whether the right at issue was clearly established … Ill In assessing defendants’ claims of qualified immunity, we are mindful of the Supreme Court’s admonition to “define the clearly established right at issue on the basis of the specific context of the case.”

Shari Guertin v. State of Mich.

912 F.3d 907 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jan 4, 2019

unclear it may be that the particular action is a violation) violates a clearly established right." … "Any other result would allow Hope 's fear of 'rigid, overreliance on factual similarity' in analyzing the 'clearly established' prong of the qualified immunity standard to be realized." *935 Baynes , 799 F.3d at 614 (quoting

Michael Easley v. City of Riverside

890 F.3d 851 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · May 18, 2018

However, an officer using deadly force is entitled to qualified immunity, unless the law was clearly established that the use of force violated the Fourth Amendment. … CITY OF RIVERSIDE in the case law concerning how distinguishable a case may be on its facts before it cannot be construed as clearly established law for qualified-immunity purposes.

Natale v. Town Of Ridgefield

927 F.2d 101 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Mar 5, 1991

A government official performing a discretionary function is entitled to qualified immunity provided his or her "conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … We disagree. 19 The threshold issue in determining the applicability of Katz' qualified immunity defense is whether the Natales had a "clearly established right" to the permits at issue.

Kenneth Craig Brady v. Fort Bend County, R. George Molina

58 F.3d 173 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Aug 25, 1995

Furthermore, the Fifth Circuit does not permit Sheriff Molina to refer to the views of the other circuits to establish that these prohibitions were not “clearly established.” … “Our inquiry [into what is clearly established law] ends, if we find from examining the decisions of the Supreme Court and our own decisions that the law was clearly established in this circuit.” Boddie v.

Foley Bey v. Prator

53 F.4th 854 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Nov 17, 2022

immunity defense alters the usual summary judgment burden of proof” because the plaintiff, to overcome qualified immunity, “must rebut the defense by establishing a genuine [dispute of material fact] as to whether … the official’s allegedly wrongful conduct violated clearly established law.”

Barrett v. Steubenville City Schools

388 F.3d 967 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Nov 15, 2004

Qualified immunity is an affirmative defense that shields government officials performing discretionary functions from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does “not violate clearly established statutory or … In accordance with these fundamental principles of law, Lucci cannot obtain qualified immunity by claiming that no clearly established right existed. III.

Hatch v. Town of Middletown

311 F.3d 83 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Nov 19, 2002

Qualified Immunity 1. … The Supreme Court of Rhode Island made the following comments in reviewing the defendants' assertion of qualified immunity: [D]efendants argue that the doctrine of qualified immunity, an immunity typically

Alfred R. Scicluna v. Harry G. Wells

345 F.3d 441 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Oct 2, 2003

Doctrine of qualified immunity The doctrine of qualified immunity shields from liability for civil damages those officials whose “conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a … We evaluate a defendant’s claim of qualified immunity by determining whether (1) a constitutional violation occurred, (2) the right violated was clearly established, and (3) “the plaintiff has alleged sufficient facts, and

Becker v. Bateman

709 F.3d 1019 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Feb 27, 2013

Thus, to overcome Officer Bateman’s defense of qualified immunity, Becker must demonstrate it was clearly established as of May 14, 2005, that Officer Bateman’s use of force was excessive. … Because Becker has thus failed to carry his burden to show the law was clearly established at the time of the incident, the district court properly concluded Officer Bateman was entitled to qualified immunity for Becker

Jones v. Coonce

7 F.3d 1359 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Oct 14, 1993

Helms, 459 U.S. 460 , 103 S.Ct. 864 , 74 L.Ed.2d 675 (1983), clearly established the law in this area, the court rejected the officials’ qualified immunity argument as to the due process violation. … In determining whether the officials are protected by qualified immunity, we must first decide the essentially legal question of whether the acts the inmates allege violated clearly established law, and then we must decide

Julian Nettles-Bey v. Philip Williams

819 F.3d 959 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Apr 14, 2016

The  district  judge  thought  that  this  suit  presents  a  triable   issue   not   because   of   any   doubt   about   the   law—the   judge   deemed   it   clearly   established   that   an   officer   may   not   arrest … That’s   the   qualified-­‐‑immunity   issue:   Whether   it   is   clearly   estab-­‐‑ lished   that   federal   law   (statutory   or   constitutional)   forbade   the   public   employees   to   act   as   they   did.  

Santander v. Salazar

133 F.4th 471 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Apr 4, 2025

Given the plausibility of Santander’s claim, we consider whether the alleged facts, if true, could defeat qualified immunity—specifically whether the right that Santander asserts was “clearly established.” … Brown, 844 F.3d 517, 524 (5th Cir. 2016) (“The second part of the [qualified immunity] inquiry looks to whether the right was clearly established at the time of the violation.” (emphasis added)).

Pritchett v. Alford

973 F.2d 307 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Sep 28, 1992

Immunity may thus be established either on the basis that the right allegedly (or actually) violated was not at the time one "clearly established," or that, though "clearly established" (and violated), it was one that a " … But as earlier noted, a specific prior adjudication of right is not necessary to make it one "clearly established" for qualified immunity purposes.

James Solomon v. Deputy U.S. Marshal Thomas

699 F.3d 1034 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Nov 9, 2012

Jones and Thomas each moved for summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity. … In the other, the court determines whether the implicated right was clearly established at the time of the deprivation. Id. (citing Parrish, 594 F.3d at 1001).