Case law

Robert R. Rowe v. Fort Lauderdale

279 F.3d 1271 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jan 23, 2002

Qualified immunity shields government officials who perform discretionary governmental functions from civil liability so long as their conduct does not violate any “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights … But, by assuming the role of an investigator, he took on a qualified immunity that protected all of his actions in performing that role that did not violate clearly established rights of which a reasonable person in his

Casey v. City of Federal Heights

509 F.3d 1278 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Dec 10, 2007

Clearly Established Law Because Officer Sweet asserts qualified immunity, we must decide not only whether Mr. … Clearly Established Law Like Officer Sweet, Officer Lor asserts qualified immunity, so we must also decide whether her use of excessive force violated “clearly established law.” Saucier, 533 U.S. at 207.

Ross W. Sorrels v. Ronald McKee David Buss Cly Evans Archie Grant Loreli, Cruthers Kay Walter Jim Blodgett Joseph Lehman

290 F.3d 965 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · May 17, 2002

The officials defended on grounds of qualified immunity, arguing that until the Ninth Circuit upheld the district court decision in Crofton , the law with respect to the “no gift publication” policy was not “clearly established … The law would be clearly established and defendants’ qualified immunity defense would fail.

McClain v. Delgado

132 F.4th 362 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Mar 20, 2025

Once qualified immunity is asserted, the burden “shifts to the plaintiff, who must rebut the defense by establishing a genuine fact issue as to whether the official’s allegedly wrongful conduct violated clearly established … To overcome a qualified-immunity defense, plaintiff “must show: (1) that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct”.

United States v. Reid

139 F.3d 1367 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Apr 29, 1998

Other than this brief comment, nothing in the record tells us why the court concluded that the appellant did not qualify for a § 5C1.2 reduction. … Furthermore, the evidence in the record does not clearly establish that he did not qualify.

Estate of Ryan L. Clark v. Tina Kuehn

Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jul 26, 2017

First, he argues that it is “doubtful” whether cir‐ cuit precedent can clearly establish law for purposes of quali‐ fied  immunity.  … Finally, Walker argues that the clearly established prohibi‐ tion on deliberate indifference to prisoners’ and jail inmates’  risk of suicide is too general to be enforceable for purposes of  qualified immunity. 

Harris v. Commissioner

16 F.3d 75 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Mar 10, 1994

Helvering, 293 U.S. 465, 55 S.Ct. 266, 79 L.Ed. 596 (1935) (holding that a transaction, although qualifying in form, failed to qualify in substance as a reorganization because "[t]o hold otherwise would be to exalt artifice … We must, however, accept the Tax Court's findings of fact unless they are clearly erroneous. Commissioner v. Duberstein, 363 U.S. 278, 291, 80 S.Ct. 1190, 1200, 4 L.Ed.2d 1218 (1960).

Walczyk v. Rio

496 F.3d 139 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Aug 1, 2007

Only if the answer to the first question is yes must a court proceed to the inquiry for qualified immunity: Was the right at issue clearly established at the time of the defendant’s actions? … If the right at issue was not clearly established by then existing precedent, then qualified immunity shields the defendant.

Holly Schulkers v. Elizabeth Kammer

955 F.3d 520 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Mar 30, 2020

A right is clearly established for purposes of overcoming the qualified immunity defense when existing precedent has “placed the statutory or constitutional question beyond debate.” White v. Pauly, 137 S. … established prong of the qualified immunity analysis.”

Louis Doss v. John Young

626 F. App'x 453 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Sep 18, 2015

Qualified Immunity Government officials may invoke qualified immunity to shield themselves “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … Clearly Established Law Turning to the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis, we consider whether Helpenstell’s conduct was proscribed by clearly established law at the time of the incident.

Anthony Perez v. City of Fresno

98 F.4th 919 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Apr 15, 2024

The panel held that the law-enforcement officers were entitled to qualified immunity. At the time of Perez’s death in 2017, the law did not clearly establish, nor was it * The Honorable Danny J. … The district court likewise granted Anderson qualified immunity because existing law did not clearly establish, nor was it obvious, that Anderson’s conduct in providing medical care was unconstitutional.

Miles LaCross v. City of Duluth

713 F.3d 1155 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · May 8, 2013

-3- Qualified immunity shields government officials from liability and the burdens of litigation in a § 1983 action unless the official’s conduct violates a clearly established … Accordingly, Mark is entitled to qualified immunity because he did not violate LaCross’s then clearly established constitutional rights.

Raiche v. Pietroski

623 F.3d 30 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Oct 25, 2010

Qualified immunity affords limited protection to public officials faced with liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, "'insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … Prong Two: The Right was Clearly Established Pietroski may still mount a successful qualified immunity defense if Raiche's Fourth Amendment right was not clearly established at

Bush v. Strain

513 F.3d 492 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jan 14, 2008

A government official performing discretionary functions is entitled to qualified immunity unless his conduct violates clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.21 … We also hold that the defendants have not established that they are entitled to qualified immunity.

Mecham v. Frazier

500 F.3d 1200 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Sep 11, 2007

Even if the officers’ use of pepper spray was not objectively reasonable, M echam has failed to meet the other requirement necessary to defeat qualified immunity— that the law was clearly established at the time of the … , the officers w ere entitled to qualified immunity because no clearly established law foreclosed the use of force in the circumstances here.

Winfield v. Trottier

710 F.3d 49 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Mar 6, 2013

However, since this right was not 28 clearly established at the time of the search, Trottier is 29 entitled to qualified immunity. … immunity if the right 3 he violated was not “clearly established” at the time of the 4 events at issue.

Donald Jackson v. Pearl Public School Distr

626 F. App'x 80 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Sep 15, 2015

Although we express no opinion as to whether the school officials’ conduct was constitutionally infirm, we conclude that the school officials are entitled to qualified immunity because it was not “clearly established” in … Qualified immunity shields federal and state officials from money damages unless a plaintiff shows (1) that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was “clearly established” at the

98 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 4057, 98 Daily Journal D.A.R. 5623 Nathaniel Watkins v. City of Oakland, California Joseph Samuels, Jr. Craig Chew E. Lewis, Officer T. Chu

145 F.3d 1087 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · May 29, 1998

"When a law enforcement officer asserts qualified immunity from liability for Fourth Amendment violations, the district court must determine whether, in light of clearly established principles governing the conduct in question … established for purposes of determining whether the officers have qualified immunity. 25 Id. at 1362 .

X-Men Security, Inc. v. Governor George Pataki

196 F.3d 56 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Nov 2, 1999

, contending principally that the complaint failed to allege the violation of any clearly established constitutional right and that, in any event, they were entitled to qualified immunity because it was objectively reasonable … Thus, when the district court has denied a qualified-immunity motion, its rulings that the plaintiff has sufficiently alleged the violation of a constitutional right and that--that right was clearly established at the time

Sims v. Metropolitan Dade County

972 F.2d 1230 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Sep 18, 1992

The current doctrine covers the state official’s discretionary actions with the cloak of qualified immunity so long as the official’s actions do not violate clearly established rights of which a reasonable person would have … ’s actions violated clearly established rights.