Case law

Roy Lee Williams v. Secretary Pennsylvania Department of Corrections

117 F.4th 503 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Sep 20, 2024

But that rule was newly articulated, and this Court held that qualified immunity applied because that articulation of the right was not clearly established. Id. at 553. … Thus, a letter from a federal agency cannot satisfy the ‘clearly established’ standard for qualified immunity.

Ansley v. Heinrich

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

The affirmative defense of qualified immunity protects public officials, acting within the scope of their discretionary authority and under clearly established law, from insubstantial lawsuits. Butz v. … In Harlow , the Supreme Court stated that the immunity defense should fail if the law governing the official’s actions has been clearly established.

International Action Center v. United States

365 F.3d 20 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Apr 16, 2004

eliminated, so long as the plaintiff has alleged (with or without evidence to back it up) violation of one ‘clearly established’ right.” … Merits Qualified immunity protects government 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

Scott Rabin v. Michael Flynn

725 F.3d 628 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jul 9, 2013

We find that the officers are entitled to qualified immunity on the unlawful arrest claim, because even if the officers had known what that type of license was, it still would have been reasonable under clearly established … “[A] court may grant qualified immunity on the ground that a purported right was not ‘clearly established’ by prior case law without first resolving whether the purported right exists.”

Estate of Lockett ex rel. Lockett v. Fallin

841 F.3d 1098 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Nov 15, 2016

Qualified Immunity All Appellees claim that they are entitled to qualified immunity. Qualified immunity protects government, officials from suit, not just from liability. Mitchell v. … Thus, Appellees have violated no clearly established law. D. Quasi-Judicial Immunity Dr.

Eng v. Cooley

552 F.3d 1062 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jan 14, 2009

If a plaintiffs constitutional rights were not clearly established at the time of the violation, then qualified immunity should be granted. 2. Whether Eng’s Rights Were Clearly Established a. … established’ to preclude qualified immunity.”

Neal W. Roland v. Perry Johnson, Thomas Phillips, Dale Foltz, Bernie Toland

933 F.2d 1009 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · May 22, 1991

Creighton, 483 U.S. 635 (1988), the Supreme Court refined the qualified immunity test developed in Harlow. … Accordingly, defendants' claim of qualified immunity is without merit. 9 The defendants next assert the district court erred in entering judgment in Roland's favor.

Tapanga Hardeman v. David Wathen

933 F.3d 816 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Aug 12, 2019

When attempting to defeat an assertion of qualified im- munity, the burden is on the plaintiffs to show that a particu- lar right is “clearly established.” … “Because a qualified immunity defense so closely depends ‘on the facts of the case,’ a ‘complaint is generally not dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6) on qualified immunity grounds.’”

Denise Coley v. Lucas County, Ohio

799 F.3d 530 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 21, 2015

Gray’s argument that his actions did not violate clearly established law thus also fails. 2. … At the time of the events alleged in the complaint, those rights were clearly established.

Mann Ex Rel. Estate of Mann v. Palmerton Area School District

872 F.3d 165 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Sep 22, 2017

In addressing the clearly established prong of the qualified immunity inquiry, we must define the right allegedly violated at the appropriate level of specificity. Sharp v. … We granted qualified immunity to the gym teacher, concluding that a child did not have a clearly established right to dry-drowning intervention protocols while participating in gym class. Id. at 641.

Joseph C. Avakoff, Appellant-Applicant v. Southern Pacific Company and Southern Pacific Transportation Company, Appellees-Opposers

765 F.2d 1097 · Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · Jun 19, 1985

Without more, this type of shipment is clearly not activity amounting to a sale or transportation of the goods in commerce and does not constitute a bona fide shipment sufficient to lay a foundation for federal registration … Clearly, the shipment by applicant’s manufacturer to the applicant was not use of the mark by applicant in commerce. Conclusion The order of the board granting Southern Pacific’s motion for summary judgment is affirmed.

Roger Miller Music, Inc., and Mary A. Miller, Plaintiffs-Appellants/cross-Appellees v. Sony/atv Publishing, Llc, Defendant-Appellee/cross-Appellant

477 F.3d 383 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Feb 13, 2007

Rather, a motion under Rule 59(e) “must either clearly establish a manifest error of law or must present newly discovered evidence.” World Univ., Inc., 978 F.2d at 16 ; FDIC v. … Winchester-Conant Prop., Inc., 322 F.3d 26, 40 (1st Cir.2003) (“Uses of the copyrighted work that stay within the scope of a nonexclusive license are immunized from infringement suits.”).

Doe v. Hennepin County

858 F.2d 1325 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Oct 6, 1988

immunity. … This claim is barred by qualified immunity unless evidence of malice or improper motives on the part of defendants is proved. Myers, 810 F.2d at 1457 .

Rogers v. Jarrett

63 F.4th 971 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Mar 30, 2023

conduct is clearly established.”22 It just isn’t enough to identify a right as “a broad general proposition.”23 The district court did not address qualified immunity’s second step. … Griffin27 supports that Jarrett and Bridges violated clearly established law.

Priester v. City of Riviera Beach

208 F.3d 919 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Apr 4, 2000

Judgment as a Matter of Law—Qualified Immunity 1. … Qualified immunity protects government officials performing discretionary functions "from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which

Rios v. City of Azusa

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Aug 20, 2026

OPINION MILLER, Circuit Judge: In an interlocutory appeal from an order denying a motion for summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity, we may consider “whether the facts establish a violation of a clearly … In such an appeal, we may review “whether the facts establish a violation of a clearly established constitutional right, thus defeating qualified immunity.” Peck, 51 F.4th at 885.

Fred Halcomb, Jr. v. Tamarra Ravenell

992 F.3d 316 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Mar 30, 2021

Determining whether an official is entitled to qualified immunity “typically involves two inquiries: (1) whether the plaintiff has established the violation of a constitutional right, and (2) whether that right was clearly … Here, we conclude that even assuming a violation of Appellee’s due process rights, Appellant is entitled to qualified immunity because the right at issue was not clearly established at the time of the alleged violation.

Novitsky v. City of Aurora

491 F.3d 1244 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jul 5, 2007

Novitsky’s first claim, the district court concluded the officers were entitled to qualified immunity because, on June 9, 2001, they did not violate clearly established law by removing M r. … W e therefore turn to the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis, asking whether Officer W ortham violated clearly established law. 2.

Megan Green v. Cliff Sommer

52 F.4th 734 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Nov 1, 2022

issue,’ involve a clearly established violation of federal law.” … On an appeal from a denial of qualified immunity at the motion to dismiss phase, “this court is constrained to the legal question whether the particular facts support the [plaintiff’s] claim that [defendants] violated clearly

Foster v. Runnels

554 F.3d 807 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Feb 5, 2009

The District Court however found that Cole was entitled to qualified immunity because the constitutional right in question was not clearly established. … Clearly Established Right The District Court found that Cole was entitled to qualified immunity because the Eighth Amendment right to adequate food was not clearly established such that it would be clear to a reasonable corrections