Case law

Tom Heaney v. Christopher Roberts

846 F.3d 795 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jan 23, 2017

Black is entitled to qualified immunity on the First Amendment claim because his actions as sergeant-at-arms were not objectively unreasonable in light of clearly established law. We affirm on that claim. D. … But an officer is only denied qualified immunity if his or her actions are objectively unreasonable in light of clearly established law. See, e.g., Blackwell v.

Amber Jackson v. Cody Swanger

97 F.4th 1343 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Apr 5, 2024

An officer exercising a dis- cretionary function is entitled to qualified immunity on a claim that his investigatory stop violated the Fourth Amendment unless “he was violating clearly established law.” … Brandt’s assertion that he did not violate clearly established law when he stopped the vehicle is a “core qualified immunity is- sue[].” Cottrell, 85 F.3d at 1484 (quotation marks omitted).

Jody Lombardo v. City of St. Louis

38 F.4th 684 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jun 29, 2022

In concluding that the officers were entitled to qualified immunity due to the lack of a clearly established right, we stated that, under the cases in this circuit addressing prone restraint, “there is no clearly established … Because the right at issue was not clearly established, the officers are entitled to qualified immunity.

Steven Kulkay v. Tom Roy

847 F.3d 637 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Feb 2, 2017

But “[u]nless the plaintiff’s allegations state a claim of violation of clearly established law, a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal before the commencement of discovery.” Mitchell v. … The officials are thus entitled to qualified immunity. Moreover, because Kulkay fails to state a claim of violation of clearly established law, he is not entitled to discovery before dismissal.

Bayer v. Monroe County Children and Youth Services

577 F.3d 186 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Aug 14, 2009

And in light of Pearson , we need not reach this issue, as we find that, under the “clearly established” prong of the Saucier test, defendants should be afforded qualified immunity with respect to this claim. … See Pearson, 129 S.Ct. at 822 (forgoing the first Saucier step and finding the defendants “are entitled to qualified immunity because [their conduct] did not violate clearly established law”).

Weise v. Casper

593 F.3d 1163 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jan 27, 2010

Because the constitutional right asserted by the Plaintiffs was not clearly established at the time of the alleged violation, we affirm the grant of qualified immunity. … But in qualified immunity cases, except in the most obvious cases, broad, general propositions of law are insufficient to suggest clearly established law. See Brousseau v.

Mohamed Sabra v. Maricopa County Community Coll

44 F.4th 867 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Aug 10, 2022

of qualified immunity, as there was no case law clearly establishing that his conduct was unconstitutional at the time of the alleged offense. … Qualified Immunity “The doctrine of qualified immunity shields officials from civil liability so long as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person

Connell v. Signoracci

153 F.3d 74 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Aug 21, 1998

A defendant is entitled to qualified immunity on a motion to dismiss if the allegations of the complaint fail to “state a claim of violation of clearly established law.” Behrens v. … Qualified immunity shields 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 known.”

Cheri Marie Hanson v. Daniel Best

915 F.3d 543 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Feb 8, 2019

We have jurisdiction to the extent that we may resolve “abstract questions of law related to the qualified- immunity determination—typically, whether the allegedly infringed federal right was clearly established.” … Therefore, the right at issue is not clearly established, and the officers are entitled to qualified immunity on Hanson’s excessive force claim.

Jason Cunningham v. Shelby Cnty., Tenn.

994 F.3d 761 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 19, 2021

Qualified immunity shields federal and state officials from money damages unless a plaintiff alleges facts showing (1) that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was clearly established … The district court pointed to precedent from this court that it believed had clearly established before March of 2017 that, for Paschal and Wiggins to be entitled to qualified immunity under the circumstances of this case

Suissa v. Fulton County, GA

74 F.3d 266 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Feb 6, 1996

Because that component of qualified immunity is established, "the burden shifts to the plaintiff to demonstrate that the defendant "violated clearly established constitutional law.' " Id. … Just as no decision clearly establishes that the First Amendment is violated by an unsuccessful attempt to influence protected speech in general, none clearly establishes that it is violated by an unsuccessful attempt

Root v. Comstock

Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jan 14, 2026

Qualified immunity “[Q]ualified immunity shields officials from civil liability so long as their conduct ‘does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would … Root’s out-of-circuit cases do not provide clearly established law. Most of them are district court and unpublished decisions that cannot qualify as clearly established law. See Surat v.

Robin Mayfield v. Butler Snow, L.L.P.

976 F.3d 482 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Sep 22, 2020

But in the context of qualified immunity, it is the plaintiff’s burden to establish that an allegedly violated right was clearly established. See, e.g., Wigginton v. Jones, 964 F.3d 329, 338 (5th Cir. 2020). … True, the Supreme Court has blessed our “sound discretion” to pivot solely on prong two of the qualified-immunity analysis. 1 And “clearly established law” is often outcome-determinative.

Florine Ching v. Ofc. Neal Walsh

73 F.4th 617 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jul 13, 2023

In a § 1983 action, an officer is entitled to qualified immunity unless: (1) the officer’s conduct violated a constitutional right, and (2) that right was clearly established. Manning v. … Because, after Jordan posed a threat to Walsh, it was not clearly established that Walsh’s continuous shooting, which lasted less than two seconds, violated a constitutional right, Walsh is entitled to qualified immunity.

Marcus Blazek v. Juan Santiago

761 F.3d 920 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Aug 5, 2014

Qualified immunity shields a public official from liability for civil damages when his “conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … The officers are entitled to qualified immunity unless (1) the evi *923 dence, viewed in the light most favorable to Blazek, establishes a violation of a constitutional or statutory right, and (2) the right was clearly established

Eric Thurairajah v. Bill Hollenbeck

925 F.3d 979 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jun 3, 2019

The district court denied qualified immunity on both claims after concluding Trooper Cross’s arrest violated Thurairajah’s clearly established constitutional rights. II. … Qualified immunity will shield a state actor, like Trooper Cross, from legal liability unless: (1) he violated a constitutional right, and (2) that constitutional right was clearly established so that a reasonable officer

Ramirez v. Killian

113 F.4th 415 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Aug 15, 2024

When a defendant pleads qualified immunity as a defense, the plaintiff “must rebut the defense by establishing a genuine fact issue as to whether the official’s allegedly wrongful conduct violated clearly established law. … light of “clearly established law.”

Patrick Russell v. Jocelyn Lumitap

31 F.4th 729 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Apr 13, 2022

, but instead argued that they were entitled to qualified immunity because they did not violate Russell’s clearly established constitutional rights on the record taken in the light most favorable to Russell. … An officer is entitled to qualified immunity unless the unlawfulness of his conduct was clearly established at the time that he acted,40 and the law at the time that the defendants acted was different than it is now.

Jimerson v. Lewis

94 F.4th 423 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Feb 1, 2024

Indeed, it is useful to divide this second component of qualified immunity into two questions: “whether the allegedly violated constitutional rights were clearly established at the time of the incident; and, if so … established law for qualified immunity analysis.”

Christopher Sandknop v. Brian O'Connell

932 F.3d 739 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Aug 5, 2019

Dismissing a case on a 12(b)(6) motion for reasons of qualified immunity is appropriate when the “immunity is established on the face of the complaint.” Ulrich v. … An official is entitled to the affirmative defense of qualified immunity “unless the evidence establishes (1) that a plaintiff’s constitutional rights have been violated, and (2) those rights were so clearly established at