Case law

Roska Ex Rel. Roska v. Peterson

304 F.3d 982 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Sep 5, 2002

Whether the law was “clearly established.” … Amendment principle was “clearly established.”

Deborah Franklin v. City of Charlotte

64 F.4th 519 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Apr 4, 2023

In which case, Officer Kerl violated clearly established law. … Therefore, she is not entitled to qualified immunity on Mrs.

Estate of Marvin L. Booker v. Gomez

745 F.3d 405 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Mar 11, 2014

Qualified Immunity—clearly established law Defendants argue they are entitled to qualified immunity because their actions did -40- not violate clearly established law. … Booker’s serious medical need and (b) this would violate clearly established law, we affirm the district court’s denial of qualified immunity. a.

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

Quinton Brown v. Larry Adams

667 F. App'x 265 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jun 23, 2016

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Brown’s First Amendment claim on the basis of qualified immunity because it would not have been clear to every reasonable official that denying Brown’s religious texts … See Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 563 U.S. 731, 735, 741 (2011) (discussing qualified immunity and noting that a right is clearly established only if “every reasonable official would have understood that what he is doing violates

Patricia Littrell v. Daniel Jake Franklin

Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Nov 2, 2004

The second step of the qualified immunity analysis requires courts “to ask whether the right was clearly established.” Id. … Specific findings on these questions of fact would have enabled the district court to address the legal issue of qualified immunity through reference to excessive force standards that are clearly established.

King v. Ambs

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Mar 21, 2008

established and Officer Ambs would be entitled to qualified immunity. . . . … Ambs’s conduct vis-a-vis the “clearly established” prong of the qualified immunity analysis.

Kerns v. Bader

663 F.3d 1173 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Dec 20, 2011

In other words, the district court’s opinion addressed only the first part of the two part test for qualified immunity. What to do when the district court fails to address the second, clearly established law, element? … And it proceeds to deny qualified immunity to all three defendants without pausing to address the clearly established law question. To be sure, the dissent appears very concerned by the fact that Mr.

Dodge v. Dean

31 F. App'x 759 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Mar 29, 2002

Moritsugu, 222 F.3d 99 , 112 n. 4 (2d Cir. 2000) (“[W]e see no reason to expect that discovery would have helped [plaintiff] establish a triable issue of material fact. … And we are particularly reluctant to remand for unnecessary discovery because this case revolves around questions of absolute and qualified immunity.”). The judgment of the district court is hereby AFFIRMED.

William McKinney v. Pat Anderson Carol Ployer H.L. Whitley George W. Sumner John Nye

924 F.2d 1500 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Feb 1, 1991

The defendants have raised the affirmative defense of qualified immunity, which shields them from liability for damages if their conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a … At the time the defendants acted, there was no clearly established liability for exposing prisoners to ETS.

Gaston v. Ploeger

229 F. App'x 702 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Apr 12, 2007

When a defendant has asserted qualified immunity, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to establish: (1) that the defendant violated the plaintiffs constitutional right, and (2) that, at the time of the incident, it was clearly … The appellants contend that, as a matter of law, the facts in the record do not establish a constitutional violation; if this is true, they are necessarily entitled to qualified immunity.

Emil A. Tonkovich v. Kansas Board Of Regents

159 F.3d 504 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Oct 26, 1998

I, doc. 3 at 172 (plaintiff's failure to allege that Hearing Committee members violated clearly established right entitles them to qualified immunity); id., doc. 4 at 216-17 (plaintiff's failure to identify clearly established … Pages and pages of facts are no substitute for citations to clearly established law. Nor can they meet Professor Tonkovich's burden on qualified immunity.

Lewis Harry, Jr. v. Anna Jacobs

648 F. App'x 732 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Apr 19, 2016

The district court properly granted summary judgment for Talley on the basis of qualified immunity because it would not have been clear to every reasonable official that it was unlawful under the circumstances to temporarily … Ct. 2074, 2080, 2083 (2011) (discussing qualified immunity and noting that a right is clearly established only if “every reasonable official would have understood that what he is doing violates that right” (citation and

Robert Devereaux v. Roberto Ricardo Perez

218 F.3d 1045 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jul 12, 2000

ANALYSIS Standard of Review 30 A district court's decision that an asserted federal right was "clearly established" such that qualified immunity in a 42 U.S.C. … Bailey, 957 F.2d 920, 931 (1st Cir. 1992) (noting that "the dimensions of [the] right [to family integrity ] have yet to be clearly established" and applying qualified immunity to suit in which social worker allegedly interfered

Cantley v. West Virginia Regional Jail & Correctional Facility Authority

771 F.3d 201 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Nov 14, 2014

The doctrine of qualified immunity protects defendants in § 1983 suits from the burden of going to trial where the “conduct [at issue] does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … Because the law was not clearly established, the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity for the strip search of Teter. 2 III.

Estate of Derek Williams, Jr. v. Jeffrey Cline

Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Aug 31, 2018

It concludes, however, that we have jurisdiction to consider the second prong of the qualified-immunity analysis: whether those constitutional rights were clearly established. … legal questions related to qualified immunity.

Slone v. Herman

983 F.2d 107 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jan 4, 1993

Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 , 102 S.Ct. 2727, 2738 , 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982), the Supreme Court held that, in order for officials to lose their qualified immunity, their conduct must violate “clearly established statutory … The Court stated that the agent was entitled to qualified immunity if, “in light of the clearly established principles governing warrantless searches, he could, as a matter of law, reasonably have believed that the search

Porter v. Bowen

496 F.3d 1009 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Aug 6, 2007

Finally, we hold that Jones is entitled to qualified immunity from damages because the constitutionality of halting vote swapping was not clearly established in 2000. … The court ruled that Jones was entitled to qualified immunity because “the law regarding the constitutionality of prohibiting internet vo-teswapping is far from clearly established.”

United States v. Morton

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Aug 23, 2022

Morton, 984 F.3d 421, 427 (5th Cir. 2021), they do not establish probable cause “that the photographs on Morton’s phones would contain evidence pertinent to [that] crime,” id. at 428. … Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 236 (2009) (giving courts discretion to rule only on the “clearly established” inquiry for qualified immunity but recognizing that deciding the underlying constitutional question is “often

Misael Cordero v. Gregory Kelley

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Mar 19, 2026

The analysis of a qualified immunity claim is guided by a two-part test: (1) “whether the facts … show the violation of a legal right,” and (2) “whether that right was clearly established.” Id. at 227. … And a “state statute cannot ‘clearly establish’ the federal right for qualified immunity purposes.” Id.