Case law

No. 98-9205

180 F.3d 409 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jun 9, 1999

Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 , 102 S.Ct. 2727 , 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982) (stating that the defense of qualified immunity does not withstand a finding that the defendant violated a clearly established constitutional right of … To survive a motion to dismiss under the second prong, the plaintiff's pleading need not clearly establish that the defendant harbored retaliatory intent.

Ansley v. Heinrich

925 F.2d 1339 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Mar 11, 1991

court concluded that taking the official's facts as true, the official's actions violated clearly established law and are therefore not within the scope of qualified immunity; or (2) the district court concluded that given … In Harlow, the Supreme Court stated that the immunity defense should fail if the law governing the official's actions has been clearly established.

Jenkins v. Talladega City Board Of Education

115 F.3d 821 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jun 2, 1997

Qualified immunity accommodates these interests by protecting those who act in reasonable reliance upon established legal principles but permitting liability for clearly unconstitutional conduct. … The "make specific" standard is substantially higher than the "clearly established" standard used to judge qualified immunity in section 1983 cases. Id. at 1393.

Paul Bame v. Todd Dillard

637 F.3d 380 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Mar 25, 2011

Qualified immunity is “a defense that shields officials from suit if their conduct ‘d[id] not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’ ” Ortiz v. … The Supreme Court in Saucier established a two-step test for determining whether a government official is entitled to qualified immunity.

Charvette Williams v. Rodney Herron

687 F.3d 971 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Aug 3, 2012

Qualified Immunity On summary judgment, government officials possess qualified immunity unless (1) the facts plaintiff has shown amount to a violation of a constitutional right, and (2) the right violated was clearly … Thus, because our claim analysis is the same regardless of whether qualified immunity is implicated, we may rely on cases not involving qualified immunity when determining whether a violation is clearly established.

Kenneth Andrew FRIEDMAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Carroll SOUTH; Henry Risley, Warden; Lee Baker; Bob Williams, Defendants-Appellees

92 F.3d 989 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Aug 20, 1996

The statute cannot be applied retroactively to make the law clear in such a way as to create liability for the prison officials, who are entitled to qualified immunity because the law was not clear in 1985. … Accordingly, the defendants are entitled to qualified immuni *990 ty. Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 639 , 107 S.Ct. 3034, 3038-39 , 97 L.Ed.2d 523 (1987).

Brown v. Miller

519 F.3d 231 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Feb 27, 2008

immunity defense to such claims seeks to shield from liability government officials performing discretionary functions “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of … a constitutional right”; if the court finds a violation then it proceeds to the second step, which is to determine whether “the right was clearly established . . . in light of the specific context of the case.”9 “To be clearly

Larry Wayne Foster v. City of Lake Jackson, A.A. McClain Etc., William Yenne, Etc., P.C. Miller, Etc., Matthew Houston, Etc., and John Dewey, Etc.

28 F.3d 425 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Sep 7, 1994

In assessing a claim of qualified immunity, we engage in a bifurcated analysis. First, we determine whether the plaintiff has allege[d] the violation of a clearly established constitutional right. … Accordingly, “ ‘[ujnless the plaintiffs allegations *429 state a claim of violation of clearly established law, a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal before the commencement of discovery.’”

Haney Ex Rel. Haney v. City of Cumming

69 F.3d 1098 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Nov 27, 1995

Nevertheless, qualified immunity will shield from civil damages individual government officials who perform discretionary functions "insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established … Should the plaintiff fail to show that the law was clearly established at the time in question, the individual defendant is entitled to qualified immunity.

Jose Saldana v. Antonio Garza and Ricardo Olvera

684 F.2d 1159 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Sep 7, 1982

Rowland, 678 F.2d 1264, 1271 (5th Cir. 1982). 14 In order to breach the qualified immunity defense, the plaintiff must establish that a defendant’s allegedly wrongful conduct violated clearly established law. Harlow v. … defendant had acted in violation of clearly established law.

Sureshbhai Patel v. City of Madison, Alabama

959 F.3d 1330 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · May 27, 2020

Under this test, the law is clearly established and qualified immunity can be overcome only if the standards set forth in relevant precedent “inevitably lead every reasonable officer in [the defendant’s] position to conclude … ’s] clearly established constitutional rights.”

Marvin v. City of Taylor

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Dec 4, 2007

In other words, qualified immunity need only be granted if there is a violation of a constitutional right, but that right was not clearly established at the time the official violated it. … If, and only if, the force used was objectively unreasonable should the Court consider qualified immunity and address the second question: whether the right violated was clearly established. B.

Paul E. Sherman v. Four County Counseling Center, Douglas Cox, Cass Superior Court Judge, and Gary Boyles, Officer

987 F.2d 397 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Feb 19, 1993

We believe these facts establish that Boyles is entitled to qualified immunity. … He also argues that even if Four County is entitled to qualified immunity, it violated his clearly established right to refuse anti-psychotic medication.

Anthony Defrancesco v. Robert C. Robbins

136 F.4th 933 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · May 7, 2025

established prong of the qualified immunity analysis. … established’ for qualified-immunity purposes.”

Earsel L. Johnson v. Bill Hay

931 F.2d 456 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Apr 15, 1991

In ascertaining whether Hay is protected by qualified immunity, we must decide “the essentially legal question whether the conduct of which [Johnson] complains violated clearly established law,” and if Johnson’s complaint … Hay claims that his refusal to fill the prescriptions did not violate Johnson’s clearly established rights.

DeVargas v. Mason & Hanger-Silas Mason Co.

844 F.2d 714 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Apr 7, 1988

In reviewing appeals of denials of qualified immunity, our primary concern is not whether defendants violated plaintiffs’ rights, but whether defendants “violate[d] clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of … If the law was not clearly established at the time defendants acted, they are entitled to qualified immunity. Id.; Mitchell, 472 U.S. at 524 , 105 S.Ct. at 2814 .

Green v. Carlson

826 F.2d 647 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Aug 13, 1987

evidence in the record in establishing the specific facts necessary to frame the qualified immunity analysis. … If the undisputed facts, so read, show that the defendant’s conduct, as a matter of law, violated no clearly established legal norms, then the district court must grant the defendant qualified immunity.

James Dennis v. City of Philadelphia

19 F.4th 279 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Nov 23, 2021

Humphrey6 and that they are entitled to qualified immunity because Dennis has failed to allege a constitutional violation of clearly established law. … Second, they argue that qualified immunity attaches because the constitutional claims asserted do not involve rights that were clearly established in 1992, when the alleged violations took place.

Castillo v. City of Weslaco

369 F.3d 504 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · May 13, 2004

Finding that the Officers sufficiently alleged a violation of clearly established federal law, the district court denied the Appellants’ motion for summary judgment asserting qualified immunity and scheduled the case for … II Qualified immunity is appropriate if “the defendant’s actions were ‘objectively reasonable’ with reference to ‘clearly established lav/ at the time of the conduct in question.” Petta v.

Tulloch v. Coughlin

50 F.3d 114 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Feb 28, 1995

In contrast, qualified immunity shields government officials from suit if either the official did not violate a “clearly established” right that a “reasonable person” would have been aware of, or it was objectively reasonable … for the official to believe that his actions would not violate a “clearly established” right.