Case law

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”).

Dangler v. New York City Off Track Betting Corp.

193 F.3d 130 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Sep 23, 1999

The court noted that at the time of Dangler’s termination, “it was not clearly established in this Circuit that the policymaker exception did not immunize employers from liability in Pickering type situations,” 1998 WL 599711 … did not- violate a clearly established constitutional right.

Ron Nord v. Walsh County

757 F.3d 734 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jun 26, 2014

If, upon application of the test, Nord’s rights were not clearly established, Wild is, of course, entitled to a qualified immunity defense against Nord’s claims. … immunity because Wild’s actions did not violate a clearly established constitutional right. *745 III.

Harold E. Sivard, Jr. v. Pulaski County, Pulaski County Sheriff's Department, Charlotte Ward-Tillett, Individually and in Her Official Capacity

17 F.3d 185 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Feb 16, 1994

Qualified Immunity of Sheriff Ward-Tillett An analysis of qualified immunity is appropriate only after resolution of the purely legal question of whether Sivard has alleged a violation of a constitutional right. … Frantz, 754 F.2d 719 (7th Cir.1985), as clearly establishing that his detention was unconstitutional.

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

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.”

Estate of Clemente Najera Aguirre v. County of Riverside

131 F.4th 702 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Mar 11, 2025

We have held “that the ‘clearly established’ prong of the qualified immunity analysis is a matter of law to be decided by a judge.” Reese v. Cnty. of Sacramento, 888 F.3d 1030, 1037 (9th Cir. 2018) (quoting Morales v. … Clearly Established Law Assessing qualified immunity after a jury verdict turns on the second, “clearly established” prong, which requires deference to the jury’s view of the facts. See A.D., 712 F.3d at 456.

Randy Cole v. Michael Hunter

905 F.3d 334 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Sep 25, 2018

of the unlawfulness of his or her conduct. 16 The officer is entitled to qualified immunity if there is no violation, or if the conduct did not violate law clearly established at the time. 17 12 136 S. … established law. 21 We will not revisit the first part of the qualified immunity inquiry in connection with any of the Coles’ claims, nor the question of clearly established law as regards the Coles’ Fourteenth Amendment

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.

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.

Williams v. Bitner

455 F.3d 186 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jul 25, 2006

We are asked to determine whether, for the purposes of qualified immunity, the conduct alleged by Williams constituted a violation of his “clearly established” rights. … Long, 72 F.3d 70, 72-74 (8th Cir. 1995) (denying qualified immunity because Muslim inmates had a clearly established right not to be forced to handle pork); Kenner v.

Decotiis v. Whittemore

635 F.3d 22 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Mar 24, 2011

Qualified Immunity The district court held that Defendant Whittemore, in her individual capacity, is entitled to qualified immunity because the law was not so clearly established as to put Whittemore on fair … A plaintiff may overcome qualified immunity by first making out the violation of a constitutional right, and second, establishing that the "right was 'clearly established' at the time of the defendant's alleged violation

Ohio Civil Service Employees Association v. Richard P. Seiter

858 F.2d 1171 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Oct 4, 1988

The court stated that this decision added to the evidence that clearly established the protected right in this case. Until recently, the controlling Supreme Court case on qualified immunity, Wood v. … Whether an official may prevail in his qualified immunity defense depends upon the “objective reasonableness of [his] conduct as measured by reference to clearly established law.”

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.

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

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

Shannon v. Koehler

616 F.3d 855 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Aug 17, 2010

unlawfulness of his conduct was not clearly established. … The defendants filed a notice of appeal setting out three issues: “(1) qualified immunity and whether the law was clearly established; (2) Monell liability; and (3) reversal of the Order bifurcating the . . . claims [against

Jamie Peterson v. David Heymes

931 F.3d 546 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 25, 2019

Qualified immunity protects an official from liability if the official’s conduct does not violate “clearly established” statutory or constitutional rights that a reasonable person would have known were in existence. … Peterson fails to plead clearly established constitutional violations with respect to each federal claim.

Daily Services, LLC v. Tracy Valentino

756 F.3d 893 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 26, 2014

Qualified Immunity’s Clearly Established Law and Parratt Our qualified immunity analysis first addresses the sole basis for the district court’s decision: whether Daily Services’ claimed constitutional right was “clearly … The applicability of Parratt , then, is irrelevant to the clearly established prong of the qualified immunity analysis.