Case law

Joe Abbott v. E. Tootell

631 F. App'x 487 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jan 27, 2016

ruling on qualified immunity, George v. Edholm, 752 F.3d 1206, 1214 (9th Cir. 2014), and we affirm. … Ct. 2074, 2080, 2083 (2011) (setting forth qualified immunity test and recognizing that a clearly established right does “not require a case directly on point”).

Bailey v. Kennedy

349 F.3d 731 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Nov 17, 2003

As discussed below, accepting the facts as the district court2 viewed them in denying qualified immunity, the police officers vio- lated clearly established federal law. … the official’s conduct did not violate clearly established law."

United States v. Rosales-Bruno

676 F.3d 1017 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Apr 6, 2012

From there, Rosales-Bruno argues that the government failed to establish that he did, in fact, employ “physical force” when he committed the offense of false imprisonment. … We find, however, that Rosales-Bruno clearly objected to specific parts of Paragraph 30 of the PSR, disputing the factual accuracy of that paragraph’s description of the conduct underlying his false imprisonment conviction

Joanne Joyce, Individually and as of the Estate of James D. Joyce v. Town of Tewksbury, Massachusetts, John R. MacKey Alfred Donovan and Robert Budryk

112 F.3d 19 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Apr 29, 1997

Because qualified immunity turns primarily on an appraisal of existing case law, oral argument has been deemed unnecessary. … But the en banc court is agreed that qualified immunity applies, and there is less consensus about the underlying constitutional issue.

Steven Manning v. Gary Miller, Federal Bureau of Investigation Agent, and Robert Buchan, Federal Bureau of Investigation Agent

355 F.3d 1028 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jan 21, 2004

Similarly, Manning is able to meet the second prong of the qualified immunity test: his constitutional due process right was “clearly established” at the time he asserts it was violated. … established at that time, Agents Buchan and Miller cannot prevail on their qualified immunity claim.

Leise v. Christie

Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Aug 27, 2025

immunity because releasing the Investigative Report did not violate clearly established law. … A qualified immunity analysis considers whether: “(1) . . . the official violated a statutory right or constitutional right, and (2) . . . the right was ‘clearly established’ at the time of the challenged conduct.”

Hinshaw v. Smith

436 F.3d 997 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jan 30, 2006

(internal marks omitted). 16 Qualified immunity protects public officials from personal liability under § 1983 when "their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … The court held that the legislators, who were not the decisionmakers, were entitled to qualified immunity because there was no clearly established federal right for an individual "to prevent legislators from exercising their

Salahuddin v. Goord

467 F.3d 263 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Oct 27, 2006

The doctrine of qualified immunity 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 would … Summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity is not appropriate because it was clearly established law at the time of the alleged violations that religious exercise may not be denied without any reason.

Nathaniel Brent v. Wayne Cnty. Dep't of Human Servs.

555 F. App'x 519 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Feb 6, 2014

Alternatively, they contend that the rights that the district court identified were not clearly established and, therefore, qualified immunity shields them. … But on a claim of qualified immunity, “[t]he plaintiff has the burden of establishing that the law was clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct.” Andrews v.

Blouin ex rel. Estate of Pouliot v. Spitzer

356 F.3d 348 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Feb 2, 2004

The court did, however, determine that they were entitled to qualified immunity, because “plaintiff has failed to allege a violation of a clearly established right. … Qualified Immunity We now consider qualified immunity, which shields a government official acting in an official capacity from suit for damages under § 1983 unless the official “violated clearly established rights of which

Tanzin v. Tanvir

592 U.S. 43 · Supreme Court of the United States · Dec 10, 2020

By the time Congress enacted RFRA, this Court had interpreted the modern ver- sion of §1983 to permit monetary recovery against officials who violated “clearly established” federal law. E.g., Procu- nier v. … who flout clearly established law,” Tr. of Oral Arg. 42; see District of Co- lumbia v.

Duncan v. Walker

533 U.S. 167 · Supreme Court of the United States · Jun 18, 2001

V) establishes the limitation period for filing § 2254 petitions in state capital cases that arise from jurisdictions meeting the "opt-in" requirements of § 2261. … In fact, the "argument from neighbors" shows only that Congress might have spoken more clearly than it did. It cannot prove the statutory point.

Boles Et Al. v. Chavis

454 U.S. 907 · Supreme Court of the United States · Oct 13, 1981

Sammye R. Holloway v. Sally Brush Clermont County, Ohio

220 F.3d 767 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 31, 2000

“[T]he actions of-a prosecutor are not absolutely immune merely because they are performed by a prosecutor. Qualified immunity represents the norm.... … Even if such motivations could legitimate Brush’s actions, it would be through qualified immunity, not absolute immunity, and she has not claimed qualified immunity.

Nicholas Narducci v. Gregory Moore

Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jul 9, 2009

The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials from lawsuits for damages when their conduct did not violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have … Here, because defendants argue that Narducci’s Fourth Amendment rights were not violated and that the violation of this right was not “clearly established,” we will consider both issues in turn. A.

Francis v. Coughlin

891 F.2d 43 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Dec 4, 1989

To defeat an official’s claim of qualified immunity, the individual's right must have been clearly established at the time of the alleged violation. Id. … clearly established.

Pagán v. Calderón

448 F.3d 16 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · May 16, 2006

To the extent that Calderon’s denied motion rested on the ground of qualified immunity, she appealed. See Mitchell v. … In sequential order, “[w]e consider (i) whether the plaintiffs allegations, if true, establish a constitutional violation; (ii) whether the constitutional right at issue was clearly established at the time of the putative

Emma Jane Prospero v. Deputy Ryan Sullivan

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Sep 4, 2025

“[W]hen legal questions of qualified immunity are raised—either to determine whether any constitutional right was violated or whether the violation of that right was clearly established—interlocutory … Because a defendant’s “assertion of qualified immunity can be defeated only by a showing of ‘clearly established’ law, we will review not for actual probable cause but rather for ‘arguable’ probable

Roxana Santos v. Frederick County Board of Commissioners

725 F.3d 451 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Aug 7, 2013

established’ for purposes of qualified immunity”); see also Hope v. … established for qualified immunity purposes.”

Cousins v. Lockyer

568 F.3d 1063 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jun 15, 2009

qualified immunity. … Qualified immunity protects government officials from civil liability if “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v.