Case law

Project Veritas Action Fund v. Rollins

982 F.3d 813 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Dec 15, 2020

And, while some courts of appeals have held that this right to record is not clearly established in some contexts for purposes of qualified immunity, see, e.g., Kelly v. … That such recording qualifies as a species of protected newsgathering does not mean that Section 99's criminal bar against it necessarily violates the First Amendment.

Maria Morales v. Sonya Fry

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Oct 16, 2017

OPINION McKEOWN, Circuit Judge: The primary issue in this appeal is whether the “clearly established” prong of the qualified immunity analysis should be submitted to a jury. … That “legal question” as to “qualified immunity” was precisely what was the “clearly established” law which any reasonable officer would know.

Colin A. Edwards v. Bryan C. Shanley

666 F.3d 1289 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jan 12, 2012

“Qualified immunity shields government officials from liability for civil damages for torts committed while performing discretionary duties unless their conduct violates a clearly established statutory or constitutional … As a result, Officer Shanley cannot claim qualified immunity on the grounds that he did not know he was violating Edwards’s constitutional rights.5 In sum, we hold that clearly established federal law prohibits

Huff v. City of Burbank

632 F.3d 539 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jan 11, 2011

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity can shield government officials from individual civil lia *548 bility where their conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory , or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … If the officers violated such a right, but it was not clearly established, then they are entitled to immunity. Hopkins, 573 F.3d at 762 .

Angelo DiLuzio v. Village of Yorkville Ohio

796 F.3d 604 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 6, 2015

Specifically, as pertinent here, the court denied qualified immunity to Mayor DiFilippo and Fire Chief Klubert on the due process claim concerning demolition of the building, denied qualified immunity to Police Chief Morelli … Qualified immunity shields government officials in the performance of discretionary functions from standing trial for civil liability unless their actions violate clearly established rights. Harlow v.

Lancaster v. Monroe County

116 F.3d 1419 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jul 11, 1997

Government officials performing discretionary ftmctions are entitled to qualified immunity “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would … Because the law clearly established that such conduct violated a pre-trial detainee’s Fourteenth Amendment right to due process, the defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity. B.

Glenn Dale Simkunas v. Michael Tardi and Robert Troy

930 F.2d 1287 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · May 3, 1991

Qualified Immunity Police officers are entitled to qualified immunity “if officers of reasonable competence could disagree” on whether there was probable cause to make an arrest. Malley v. … They were entitled to the defense of qualified immunity, and summary judgment on this basis was therefore appropriate. B.

Kulwicki, III v. Dawson

969 F.2d 1454 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jul 2, 1992

He is immune if he acted reasonably with respect to Kulwicki's constitutional rights, or if he did not violate clearly established law. … communication, however, we find that Loutzenhiser is entitled to qualified immunity because Kulwicki fails to allege a violation of clearly established federal law.

Tyree Bell v. Officer Peter Neukirch

979 F.3d 594 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Oct 28, 2020

was clearly established at the time.” … If their unlawful conduct was clearly established, then they are not entitled to qualified immunity. See id.

Castagna v. Jean

Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Jul 2, 2021

Town of Eastham, 745 F.3d 8, 14 (1st Cir. 2014) (holding that officers who entered home under community caretaking exception were entitled to qualified immunity because unlawfulness of conduct was not clearly established) … To defeat the officers' assertion of qualified immunity, the Castagnas must show that the officers' conduct was clearly established as unlawful in 2013. See District of Columbia v. Wesby, 138 S. Ct. 577, 589 (2018).

Fox v. Coughlin

893 F.2d 475 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jan 4, 1990

The district court denied Fox’s motion and granted the appellees’ cross motion for summary judgment on the grounds that they were protected by qualified immunity because Fox did not have a “clearly established” right to assistance … These reasons satisfy the flexible standard set forth in Wolff , and bars Fox’s § 1983 claim against DiLoreto under qualified immunity.

Walden v. Carmack

156 F.3d 861 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Sep 28, 1998

In resolving a case in which the defense of qualified immunity has been raised, this Court must determine whether the appellees asserted a violation of a federal right, whether that right was clearly established, and whether … These persons are immune from suit on the basis of qualified immunity unless their conduct violated clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. Harlow v.

Clemente Properties, Inc. v. Pierluisi-Urrutia

Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Jan 16, 2026

recognizing that judges may begin by considering whether a right is "clearly established"). … Under the qualified immunity doctrine, an official is immune to liability for damages when his or her "conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would

Claudine L. Boyce, Also Known as Marilyn Boyce v. Vera Fernandes and City of Peoria, Illinois

77 F.3d 946 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Feb 26, 1996

Where the only issue bearing on immunity is whether the defendant had probable cause to make the search or arrest that is challenged, merits and immunity merge; the dispositive question is simply whether the defendant did … The fact that in the end Boyce was not prosecuted does not establish the absence of probable cause, and not only because the legal standard and the evidentiary requirements for probable cause are more stringent at the preliminary

Friedman v. Boucher

580 F.3d 847 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jun 23, 2009

Because Friedman’s rights were clearly established at the time that Defendants took the sample, the Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity. … Because the forcible taking of the DNA sample violated Friedman’s clearly established constitutional rights, neither Boucher nor Luzaich is entitled to qualified immunity.

Fleet Hamby v. Steven Hammond

821 F.3d 1085 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · May 2, 2016

For that reason alone, they did not violate a “clearly established” right, and so they must be entitled to qualified immunity. … Even if district court decisions could clearly establish the law for purposes of qualified immunity, the cases on which Hamby relies cannot do the work he asks of them. a One of the cases Hamby cites denied qualified immunity

ND State University v. United States

Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jun 18, 2001

"Wages usually are income, but many items qualify as income and yet clearly are not wages." Cent. Ill. Pub. Serv. Co. v. United States, 435 U.S. 21, 25 (1978). … because a tenured professor's right to substantive due process was clearly established); see also Mueller v.

Zeigler v. Jackson

716 F.2d 847 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Oct 3, 1983

Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 , 102 S.Ct. 2727, 2736-39 , 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982), the Supreme Court held that public officials whose positions entail the exercise of discretion enjoy qualified immunity from personal liability in … In order to show that a defendant exercising broad discretionary power lacked good faith, plaintiff must prove that the defendant’s actions violated clearly established constitutional law. Harlow v.

Joseph Wheeler, Cross v. City of Pleasant Grove, a Municipal Corp., Cross

664 F.2d 99 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Dec 18, 1981

We see no reason to disturb this finding under the clearly erroneous rule. … The district court held that the defendants in this action were shielded by the defense of a qualified immunity as set forth in Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232 , 94 S.Ct. 1683 , 40 L.Ed.2d 90 (1974).

Maureen Mirabella v. Susan Villard

853 F.3d 641 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Apr 4, 2017

The rights allegedly violated, however, were not clearly established for the purpose of qualified immunity. … Under the second prong of qualified immunity, however, we conclude that the right was not clearly established.