Case law

Bergeron v. Cabral

560 F.3d 1 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Mar 9, 2009

The Qualified Immunity Inquiry. A district court's ruling granting or denying a summary judgment motion premised on qualified immunity engenders de novo review. … The third prong of the qualified immunity inquiry is qualitatively different from the first two prongs.

Callahan v. Millard County

494 F.3d 891 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jul 16, 2007

The district court held that the individual officers were entitled to qualified immunity because Mr. Callahan did not establish that the officers violated a clearly established right. … Callahan’s rights were clearly established Having established that Mr. Callahan’s rights were violated, we now turn to whether these rights were clearly established.

Charles Odom v. Kenan Kaizer

864 F.3d 920 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jul 26, 2017

right was so ‘clearly established’ at the time of the alleged violation that a reasonable officer would have known that his conduct was unlawful.” … established,” fulfilling part of the qualified immunity test.

Patsy Carolyn POE, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Donnie HAYDON, Et Al., Defendants-Appellants

853 F.2d 418 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 28, 1988

Poe contends that the burden is on the defendants to establish that they are entitled to qualified immunity; the plaintiff has no burden whatsoever of showing that the rights at issue were “clearly established” at the time … IV In rejecting the appellants’ claim to qualified immunity, the district court concluded that the appellants “may have violated the plaintiff's clearly established rights and hence are not qualifiedly immune.”

Willashia Williams v. City of York

967 F.3d 252 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jul 24, 2020

B The doctrine of qualified immunity shields officials from civil liability “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have … “To resolve a claim of qualified immunity, [we] engage in a two-pronged inquiry: (1) whether the plaintiff sufficiently alleged the violation of a constitutional right, and (2) whether the right was clearly established at

Norvis Harmon v. Dallas County, Texas

927 F.3d 884 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jun 21, 2019

Next, he argues the district court erred in granting Evans qualified immunity on his First Amendment retaliation claim because his right to engage in the speech at issue was clearly established at the time of his termination … After ordering supplemental briefing on this point, the district court held that the law regarding Harmon’s speech was not clearly established at the time of his termination and thus Evans was entitled to qualified immunity

Tracy Presson v. Darrin Reed

65 F.4th 357 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Apr 12, 2023

Thus, the pretrial detainee’s “right to adequate treatment was clearly established, and the district court properly denied the defendants qualified immunity.” Id. … Construing the facts in the light most favorable to Presson, his “right to adequate treatment was clearly established, and the district court properly denied the defendants qualified immunity.”

MAHAMED v. Anderson

612 F.3d 1084 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jul 30, 2010

Pedersen now appeals, claiming he is entitled to qualified immunity because he did not violate Mahamed’s constitutional rights, and even if he did, the law was not clearly established at the time of the incident. … “We have jurisdiction over an order denying summary judgment based on qualified immunity when the issue on appeal ‘turns on a legal determination [of] whether certain facts show a violation of clearly established law.’”

Hudson v. Hall

231 F.3d 1289 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Oct 30, 2000

violated clearly established law." … clearly established law.

Smith v. Lomax

45 F.3d 402 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Feb 22, 1995

Then we ask, on the issue of qualified immunity, whether precedent clearly established that such conduct violated the Equal Protection Clause. … her of a clearly established property right.

Garmon v. Lumpkin County

878 F.2d 1406 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 4, 1989

The district court granted defendants' motion for directed verdict based upon the doctrine of qualified immunity. For the reasons stated below, we reverse. 2 On January 22, 1986, Mrs. … Garmon's warrant was issued without probable cause he nevertheless is shielded from liability for damages under the rule of qualified immunity.

Tonya Weinberg Gilmore v. Pam Hodges

738 F.3d 266 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Dec 20, 2013

Qualified immunity protects government officials from liability for civil damages unless they violate a statutory or constitutional right that was clearly established at the time the alleged violation took place. … The Plaintiffs’ reliance on unpublished case law drawn from other circuits and from the district courts is unavailing, because only binding precedent can clearly establish a right for qualified immunity purposes.

Raymond Barton v. Sheldon Neeley

114 F.4th 581 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 27, 2024

If the public-official defendant did not violate a constitutional right, or if he did but the right was not clearly established at the time of the violation, then the defendant is entitled to qualified immunity. … Therefore, the court denied qualified immunity because it was “clearly established that the First Amendment protect[s] a citizen’s decision both as to what to say and  No. 23-2089 Barton v.

Bishop v. Hackel

636 F.3d 757 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Feb 1, 2011

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, government officials performing discretionary functions are shielded from civil liability unless their conduct violates clearly established constitutional … a constitutional right; and (2) the right was clearly established.

Willingham v. Loughnan

261 F.3d 1178 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 15, 2001

The Officer Defendants argue, most substantively, that they are entitled to qualified immunity because their acts violated no clearly established law at the pertinent time. … established preexisting law for qualified immunity purposes.

Dana Ault v. Leslie Speicher

634 F.3d 942 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Mar 3, 2011

“The doctrine of qualified immunity protects govern- ment officials from liability for civil damages when their conduct does not clearly violate established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … On a qualified immunity claim the court confronts two questions: (1) whether the plain- tiff’s allegations make out a deprivation of a constitu- tional right; and (2) whether that right was clearly estab- lished at the time

Estate of Joseph Valverde v. Dodge

967 F.3d 1049 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jul 30, 2020

On this issue we rely on the second prong of qualified immunity, the absence of clearly established law to support Plaintiff’s claim. … Prong Two - Clearly Established Law Whether the district court properly denied qualified immunity to Sergeant Dodge turns on whether the Estate has shown that his challenged conduct violated clearly established law

Wright v. City of Philadelphia

409 F.3d 595 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jun 6, 2005

violated was clearly established. … right was clearly established.”

Scott v. Fischer

616 F.3d 100 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Aug 11, 2010

“clearly established” in the qualified immunity context, which governs the conduct of government officials who are likely neither lawyers nor legal scholars. … established when they took place and the defendants are therefore entitled to qualified immunity.

Fancher v. Barrientos

723 F.3d 1191 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jul 12, 2013

Barrientos asserts he is entitled to qualified immunity because his use of deadly force was objectively reasonable and did not violate clearly established law. … Accordingly, the district court, in evaluating Barrientos’s assertion of qualified immunity, did not err in concluding Barrientos violated clearly established law when he fired shots two through seven.