Case law

Armijo Ex Rel. Armijo Sanchez v. Peterson

601 F.3d 1065 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Apr 13, 2010

Qualified immunity “protects governmental 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 … The qualified immunity inquiry has two elements: whether a constitutional violation occurred, and whether the violated right was “clearly established” at the time of the violation. Pearson, 129 S.Ct. at 815-16 .

Lisa Bergman v. Jeremy Howard

54 F.4th 950 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Dec 12, 2022

To qualify as “clearly established,” a principle must originate from an actual Supreme Court holding, not from its passing dicta. See White v. Woodall, 572 U.S. 415, 419 (2014). … Did the Michigan court’s refusal to provide this different type of state-funded expert qualify as an “unreasonable application” of Ake’s clearly established holding? We think not.

Bustos v. Martini Club, Inc.

599 F.3d 458 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Mar 5, 2010

wrong.” 14 We must determine if the Texas Supreme Court decision renders Meadours clearly wrong. … Lyford, 243 F.3d 185, 191 n.18 (5th Cir. 2001) (explaining that a municipality may be liable if a plaintiff states a claim against an official but the official is protected by qualified immunity). 51 Curley

Rombach v. Culpepper

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jul 13, 2021

a clearly established constitutional right.” … Sheehan, 575 U.S. 600, 613 (2015) (“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.”).

Watkins v. City of Oakland

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

Although the use of excessive force in effecting an arrest is a clearly established violation of the Fourth Amendment, Watkins’ legal right cannot be so general as to allow him to “convert the rule of qualified immunity . … established for purposes of determining whether the officers have qualified immunity.

Burden v. Carroll

108 F. App'x 291 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 12, 2004

Qualified Immunity Mitchell v. … Qualified immunity affords government officials an immunity from suit “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known” (Harlow

In re Possible Violations of 18 USC 371, 641, 1503

564 F.2d 567 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Sep 2, 1977

In particular, the Court observed *86 that official harassment of the press undertaken solely to disrupt a reporter’s relationship with news sources would clearly be subject to judicial control. 18 In a separate opinion, … A newsman can claim no general immunity, qualified or otherwise, from grand jury questioning. On the contrary, like all other witnesses, he must appear and normally must answer.

Nelson Edwards v. Michael Jolliff-Blake

Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Nov 1, 2018

  that  constitutional  right  was  clearly  established  at  the  time  of  the  alleged  violation.”  …   immunity);  Junkert,  610 F.3d at 370 (concluding officers were entitled to qualified  immunity based on  their reasonable  belief that  the  affidavit  established probable cause even though it left “much to be de‐ sired”)

Keshone Owens v. James Dzurenda

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · May 16, 2023

but did not address whether the law was clearly established). 3 has begun to run.” … We reverse the district court’s denial of qualified immunity and remand with instructions to grant Appellants’ motion to dismiss based on qualified immunity.

Haygood v. Johnson

70 F.3d 92 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Dec 4, 1995

clearly established federal law. … McMillian, 939 F.2d 1479, 1497-98 & n. 32 (11th Cir.1991) (law can be "clearly established" for qualified immunity purposes by decisions of U.S.

Spicer v. Hilton

618 F.2d 232 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Feb 28, 1980

However, it is well established that courts have a duty to avoid passing upon a constitutional question if the case may be disposed of on some other ground. Hagans v. … It is clearly established that the state’s immunity can be waived by the state, see, e. g., Petty v. Tennessee-Missouri Bridge Comm’n., 359 U.S. 275, 276 , 79 S.Ct. 785 , 3 L.Ed.2d 804 (1959); Gunter v.

Tooly v. Schwaller

919 F.3d 165 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Mar 20, 2019

The Lack of Clearly Established Law For qualified immunity to apply, it is sufficient that no clearly established law has held that "an officer acting under similar circumstances" violated an employee's due process rights … And we conclude that, since Schwaller has not violated Tooly's clearly established rights, he is entitled to qualified immunity.

Michelin D. McKee v. James Montiel

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · May 8, 2025

Such a violation would also violate clearly established law, as required to overcome qualified immunity. … See Hall, 975 F.3d at 1275 (explaining that to defeat qualified immunity, the plaintiff must establish that the defendant violated a “clearly established” constitutional right).

Margaret L. Hosty, Jeni S. Porche, and Steven P. Barba v. Patricia Carter, and Governors State University

412 F.3d 731 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jun 20, 2005

Only if the answer is affirmative does the court inquire whether the official enjoys qualified immunity. … She therefore is entitled to qualified immunity from liability in damages. Reversed.

Martinez v. Beggs

563 F.3d 1082 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Apr 21, 2009

When a defendant asserts qualified immunity at summary judgment, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to show that: (1) the defendant violated a constitutional right and (2) the constitutional right was clearly established … In this case, because defendants did not violate Ginn’s constitutional rights, we need not address whether those rights were clearly established.

Christopher Kiesling v. Ross Spurlock

859 F.3d 529 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jun 9, 2017

The doctrine of qualified immunity “protects government officials ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as then-conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … As such, the district court erred in determining that Spurlock was not entitled to qualified immunity. 7 Accordingly, the district court’s order denying qualified immunity as to Officer Spurlock is reversed. .Contrary to

Russell v. Scully

15 F.3d 219 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jun 4, 1993

Wright moved for summary judgment on the ground that he enjoyed qualified immunity. … Judge Sweet denied the motion, holding that the failure to assess independently the credibility and reliability of informants breached a clearly established due process right and that the defense of qualified immunity was

Gary L. Higgason, M.D. v. Robert F. Stephens

288 F.3d 868 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · May 1, 2002

Qualified immunity grants government officials engaged in discretionary activities immunity from individual liability for civil damages unless their conduct violates “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights … ” in nature, then the prosecutor would only be entitled to qualified immunity.

Singer v. Fulton County Sheriff

63 F.3d 110 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Aug 9, 1995

immunity. … See Mozzochi, 959 F.2d at 1179-80 (probable cause); Magnotti, 918 F.2d at 368 (qualified immunity). As noted above, there was probable cause to arrest and charge Singer with petit larceny.

Cheryl Ann Piechowicz, Individually and as Personal Representative of the Estate of David Scott Piechowicz Sherrie Marie Waldrup, a Minor by Cheryl Ann Piechowicz, Her Mother and Next Friend Melva Kennedy, "To the Use of Walter Piechowicz" "To the Use of Florence Piechowicz" "To the Use of Reliance Insurance Company" John I. Kennedy, Jr., Individually and as Personal Representative of the Estate of Susan C. Kennedy v. United States of America James Savage, Individually and as Assistant United States Attorney for the District of Maryland John Ryan, Individually and as an Agent of the Drug Enforcement Administration of the United States, Cheryl Ann Piechowicz, Individually and as Personal Representative of the Estate of David Scott Piechowicz Sherrie Marie Waldrup, a Minor by Cheryl Ann Piechowicz, Her Mother and Next Friend John I. Kennedy, Jr., Individually and as Personal Representative of the Estate of Susan C. Kennedy Melva Kennedy, "To the Use of Walter Piechowicz" "To the Use of Florence Piechowicz" "To the Use of Reliance Insurance Company" v. United States of America James Savage, Individually and as Assistant United States Attorney for the District of Maryland John Ryan, Individually and as an Agent of the Drug Enforcement Administration of the United States

885 F.2d 1207 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Sep 20, 1989

it did not "violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known." … Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511 , 105 S.Ct. 2806 , 86 L.Ed.2d 411 (1985) (allocating to the plaintiff the burden to "state a claim of violation of clearly established law" to avoid dismissal based on qualified immunity).