Case law

Gustafson v. Jones

117 F.3d 1015 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jun 27, 1997

Public officials performing discretionary functions are entitled to qualified immunity from civil damages “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory *1021 or constitutional rights of which a … The court’s comments simply noted an undeniable fact about balancing tests, which is that they produce a wide gray area between the clearly legal and the clearly illegal, and the rules of qualified immunity require giving

Logan Vanderhoef v. Maurice Dixon

938 F.3d 271 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 21, 2019

Dixon Page 2 verdict, ruling that Dixon was entitled to qualified immunity because no clearly established law put him on notice that doing what he did was unconstitutional. … The rights violated must have been clearly established at the time—the second prong of the qualified-immunity analysis. Bletz, 641 F.3d at 750. “Clearly established  No. 18-5993 Vanderhoef v.

Clifford George v. Thomas Edholm

752 F.3d 1206 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · May 28, 2014

The panel further held that the police officers were not entitled to qualified immunity on the Fourth Amendment claim. … Qualified Immunity Even if Officers Freeman and Johnson violated George’s Fourth Amendment rights, they are entitled to qualified immunity if those rights were not “clearly established” at the time of the search.

Stoot v. City of Everett

582 F.3d 910 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Sep 18, 2009

We nonetheless affirm the district court’s grant of summary judgment to defendants on the Fourth Amendment claim on the basis of qualified immunity, as the pertinent law was not clearly established at the time of the violations … Qualified Immunity Even if Jensen did violate Paul’s Fourth Amendment rights by seizing him without probable cause, Jensen may still be entitled to qualified immunity if his conduct “ ‘[did] not violate clearly established

Wood v. Moss

572 U.S. 744 · Supreme Court of the United States · May 27, 2014

Officials are sheltered from suit, under a doctrine known as qualified immunity, when their conduct “does not violate clearly established . . . constitutional rights” a reasonable official, similarly situated, would have … The agents further maintained that they were sheltered by qualified immunity because the constitutional right al- leged by the protesters was not clearly established. The District Court denied the motion, see Moss v.

David Carter v. Timothy Filbeck

821 F.3d 1310 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · May 3, 2016

An official like Filbeck, who asserts entitlement to qualified immunity, must first establish that he was acting within the scope of his discretionary authority. … Overcoming the official’s qualified-immunity defense requires a plaintiff to establish both that the officer’s conduct violated a constitutionally protected right and that the right was clearly established at the time

Alex Wayne Morton v. Jeremy Kirkwood

707 F.3d 1276 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Feb 8, 2013

Qualified immunity does not apply where the facts show that the official violated the plaintiff’s constitutional rights and where the law clearly established those rights at the time of the alleged misconduct. … Kirkwood would nonetheless be entitled to qualified immunity unless Morton can show that the law clearly established his rights at the time of the putative misconduct. See Pearson, 555 U.S. at 232.

Moses Stryker v. City of Homewood

978 F.3d 769 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Oct 20, 2020

Qualified immunity is a doctrine that shields public officials “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … violated was clearly established.”

Harlow v. Fitzgerald

457 U.S. 800 · Supreme Court of the United States · Jun 24, 1982

On summary judgment, the judge appropriately may determine, not only the currently applicable law, but whether that law was clearly established at the time an action occurred. 32 If the law at that time was not clearly established … If the law was clearly established, the immunity defense ordinarily *819 should fail, since a reasonably competent public official should know the law governing his conduct.

California Attorneys for Criminal Justice v. Butts

195 F.3d 1039 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Nov 8, 1999

The defendants contend, however, that they are nevertheless entitled to qualified immunity because reasonable officers in their position could have believed that their interrogation did not violate “clearly established rights … The Right is Clearly Established To be “clearly established” for the purpose of overcoming qualified immunity, “[t]he contours of the right must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what

Harden v. Byers

128 F.4th 1156 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Feb 14, 2025

To carry her burden on the second prong of our qualified immunity analysis, Works must show that Byers’ constitutional misconduct violated her clearly established right. … Byers, therefore, violated a clearly established constitutional right, and Works overcomes the second prong of qualified immunity.

Patricia Finnegan v. Richard Fountain

915 F.2d 817 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Oct 1, 1990

By comparison, to establish the qualified immunity defense, a police officer must satisfy one of two tests: either that his conduct did not violate “clearly established rights” of which a reasonable person would have known … We read Finnegan’s argument to state that any use of constitutionally excessive force violates “clearly established” rights, so that the qualified immunity may not shield one who has used excessive force.

Romero v. Storey

672 F.3d 880 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Feb 23, 2012

Qualified immunity shields government officials “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have … In other words, “[a]n order denying summary judgment based on qualified immunity necessarily involves a legal 3 determination that certain alleged actions violate clearly established

Maria Sandoval v. Peter Hish

461 F. App'x 568 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Dec 12, 2011

The use of physical restraints, moreover, also would have violated the decedent’s clearly established right to be free from excessive force at the time of the incident. … Defendants, therefore, were not entitled to qualified immunity. AFFIRMED. 3

Leverington v. City of Colorado Springs

643 F.3d 719 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · May 5, 2011

be resolved as a matter of law, the law is not clearly established and qualified immunity is appropriate.” … Leverington’s free-speech rights in this context were not clearly established, and Peters is entitled to qualified immunity on this basis. In addition, it was not clearly established that Ms.

Levine v. City of Alameda

525 F.3d 903 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · May 13, 2008

Qualified Immunity The district court properly found that Flint was not personally liable for violating Levine’s due process rights based on qualified immunity. … Under the defense of qualified immunity, a government official is immune from civil damages unless his conduct violates a clearly established right of which a reasonable person would have known. Long v.

Sydney Rieman v. Gloria Vazquez

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Apr 2, 2024

The panel held that defendants were not entitled to qualified immunity from suit for failing to provide notice of the hearing. Ms. Rieman had a due process right to such notice and that right was clearly established. … immunity because they did not violate any clearly established constitutional rights.

Jeffrey C. Rahn v. Vickie Hawkins

73 F. App'x 898 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Aug 26, 2003

The district court found the officers were entitled to qualified immunity on the excessive-force claim and granted summary judgment to defendants on the remaining claims.1 We reverse the grant of qualified immunity, and we … We also hold that the constitutional right at issue was clearly established. See Hope v.

Leah Norton v. Heather Stille

526 F. App'x 509 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · May 13, 2013

Qualified immunity protects government officials from liability for discretionary functions performed in the course of duty so long as “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights … Stille those rights were clearly established at the time of the incident, Stille is not entitled to summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity.

Capone v. Marinelli

868 F.2d 102 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Feb 23, 1989

Because we find that the Appellants reasonably relied upon a bulletin establishing the existence of a warrant for arrest, they are entitled to qualified immunity as a matter of law. … violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”