Case law

Estate of James Franklin Perry v. Cheryl Wenzel

872 F.3d 439 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Sep 18, 2017

As a result, qualified immunity is not a bar to  Perry’s suit.  … If  the  right  was clearly established, then qualified immunity is not a bar  to suit. Washington v. Haupert, 481 F.3d 543, 547 (7th Cir. 2007). 

Mica Spady v. Bethlehem Area School District

800 F.3d 633 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Sep 1, 2015

“Whether an asserted federal right was clearly established at a particular time, so that a public official who allegedly violated the right has no qualified immunity from suit, presents a question of law[.]” Elder v. … We also take this opportunity to clarify Curley, which the District Court cited in declining to reach the “clearly established” prong of the qualified immunity analysis.

Bailey v. Pataki

708 F.3d 391 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Feb 14, 2013

immunity because the right 22 at issue was not "clearly established" when the Initiative was 23 implemented. … Qualified Immunity 2 The defendants are entitled to qualified immunity if 3 they can establish either that (1) "a constitutional right was 4 [not] violated" or (2) "the right was [not] clearly established

People of Three Mile Island v. Nuclear Regulatory Commissioners

747 F.2d 139 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Oct 29, 1984

immunity unless they have violated a clearly established statutory or constitutional right. … established so as to defeat qualified immunity. 17 As stated in Part II, supra, we do not insist- on an exact factual match when a general legal proposition is clearly established.

Lassiter v. Alabama

28 F.3d 1146 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 17, 1994

has recognized that where the legal norms at issue are clearly established, critical factual disputes preclude the grant of qualified immunity. … Plaintiffs may also seek injunctive relief 3 Once the qualified immunity defense is raised, plaintiffs bear the burden of showing that the federal "rights" allegedly violated were "clearly established."

Corey Bland v. City of Newark

900 F.3d 77 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Aug 15, 2018

B “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 would have … Bland’s clearly established constitutional rights, we will reverse the order of the District Court so summary judgment may be entered for Defendants. 8 Because Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity

Taylor v. LeBlanc

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · May 15, 2023

LeBlanc appeals the denial of qualified immunity arguing, inter alia, that his conduct wasn’t objectively unreasonable in light of clearly established law. … Lambert, 921 F.3d 215, 219 (5th Cir. 2019) (qualified immunity turns on whether defendant’s conduct is “objectively unreasonable in light of clearly established law”); Hinojosa v.

Joseph Zadeh v. Mari Robinson

928 F.3d 457 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jul 2, 2019

Clearly established law for qualified immunity To summarize, we have concluded there was a violation of Dr. Zadeh’s constitutional rights. … But owing to a legal deus ex machina—the “clearly established” prong of qualified-immunity analysis— the violation eludes vindication.

Dale Singleton v. Commw. of Ky.

843 F.3d 238 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Dec 6, 2016

violated clearly established federal law. … But in this instance our decision has less to do with traditional qualified immunity disputes—especially the clearly established prong of the qualified immunity inquiry—and more to do with the Supremacy Clause.

Charles Lewis v. Kimberly Gardner

932 F.3d 646 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jul 26, 2019

Gardner moved to dismiss, arguing, among other things, that she was entitled to qualified immunity because the complaint did not establish how she was personally involved in violating a clearly established constitutional … A government official is entitled to qualified immunity if her conduct does not violate clearly established constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. White v. Pauly, 137 S.

Isayeva v. Sacramento Sheriff's Department

872 F.3d 938 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Oct 2, 2017

Qualified immunity involves two questions: (1) whether the defendant violated a constitutional right, and (2) whether that right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation. See Pearson v. … Instead, we rest our holding on the second prong of qualified immunity, that Tereschenko held no clearly established right not to be shot by Deputy Barry.

Grant v. City of Pittsburgh

98 F.3d 116 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Oct 18, 1996

The Court in Anderson held that to defeat qualified immunity it is not sufficient that the right at issue be clearly established as a general matter. … violated clearly established federal law."

Melvin Eugene Duckworth v. John H. Ford, Richard C. Rice

995 F.2d 858 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jun 15, 1993

For reversal, Ford argues the district court erred in denying summary judgment based on qualified immunity because the alleged action neither violated any clearly established law regarding a constitutional right, nor constituted … Ford finally argued he was entitled to qualified immunity because it was not clearly established in 1988 that spreading rumors could give rise to a violation of first amendment rights.

Redd v. Wright

597 F.3d 532 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Mar 10, 2010

Redd’s alleged due process right was not 7 clearly established at the time of the violation, and therefore 8 the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity on this claim. 9 First, as previously discussed, it … Thus, the defendants are 20 entitled to qualified immunity with respect to Redd’s claim based 21 on the procedures for curtailing the duration of confinement. 22 Nor was it clearly established that Redd was

Dawn Crawford v. John Tilley

15 F.4th 752 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Oct 8, 2021

To be fair, most statements of this proposition are careful to explain that its application rests on qualified immunity’s clearly established prong. See, e.g., Hart v. … This reluctance to dismiss cases on qualified immunity might have more vitality in the clearly established context, which Iqbal did not cover. But even there, the inquiry is nuanced.

Rutha Carroll v. Harris County

800 F.3d 154 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Aug 26, 2015

In the qualified-immunity context, we review only the “purely legal question whether a given course of conduct would be objectively unreasonable in light of clearly established law.” … The court held that the use of force was excessive, but concluded that, as of 2004, the law was not clearly established and granted qualified immunity. Id. at 448.

Debrew v. Auman

354 F. App'x 639 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Nov 25, 2009

“[T]he qualified-immunity defense shields government agents from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would … Because the complaint failed to disclose whether the defendants’ actions did not violate a clearly established constitutional right, dismissal on qualified immunity grounds was premature.

James Ross v. City of Jackson, Missouri

897 F.3d 916 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jul 26, 2018

The district court granted the officers summary judgment, reasoning that they were entitled to qualified immunity because the rights that Ross asserted had not been clearly established at the time that they were violated. … In determining whether an officer is entitled to qualified immunity for a warrantless arrest—i.e., whether the Fourth Amendment right was clearly established—we have explained: An officer . . . is entitled to qualified

Stuard Wegener v. City of Covington and Joseph Condit, City Solicitor, Lt. Joan Penick (90-5765) and Capt. Gilbert McClure (90-5716)

933 F.2d 390 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · May 16, 1991

Analysis A public official is entitled to qualified immunity for conduct in performing discretionary functions so long as that conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … When ruling on qualified immunity, the district court should indicate the clearly established right at issue and the factual basis for its conclusion that a genuine issue exists as to the commission of acts violating that

Michael Ostlund v. Robert C. Bobb, Edward J. Cooper, City of Santa Ana

825 F.2d 1371 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Aug 21, 1987

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity shields government officials from liability for damages arising from discretionary actions if the conduct of the officials “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … Therefore, Bobb and Cooper are not entitled to qualified immunity. See McIntosh v.