Case law

Angelo Clark v. Robert Coupe

55 F.4th 167 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Nov 28, 2022

immunity grounds, finding Clark failed to allege the violation of a clearly established right. … Qualified Immunity “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

Hynson v. City of Chester

827 F.2d 932 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Sep 2, 1987

In reviewing the denial of a defendant’s claim of qualified immunity, our determination is limited to the purely legal question of whether the facts alleged support a violation of clearly established law: An appellate court … clearly established at the time of the conduct at issue.

Rodriguez v. Passinault

637 F.3d 675 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Mar 25, 2011

Garner[, 471 U.S. 1 (1985),] provides a ‘clearly established’ right that fulfills the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis.” Id. at 347. … Thus, Pierce is entitled to qualified immunity.” Id. at 878.

Intervarsity Christian Fellows v. University of Iowa

5 F.4th 855 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jul 16, 2021

immunity because the law was not clearly established. … As for qualified immunity, the court denied the individual defendants qualified immunity on the free speech and association claims, finding that the law was clearly established that the University could not discriminate based

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.

Oberist Lee Saunders v. George C. Duke

766 F.3d 1262 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Sep 8, 2014

Under this doctrine, “courts may not award damages against a government official in his personal capacity unless the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and the right was ‘clearly established’ at the … Saunders] to show that qualified immunity is not appropriate.” Lee, 284 F.3d at 1194. With these principles in mind, we turn to the qualified immunity analysis.

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.

Gary Mason v. Ricky Stallings, C.L. St. Clair, Jr., Charles Burkhalter, Harold Woodall, Phillip Jordan, All Individually

82 F.3d 1007 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · May 9, 1996

Judicially created qualified immunity enables a public official to avoid suit on an alleged constitutional or federal law violation where the law governing the claimed right was not clearly established at the time of the … The relevant question on a motion for summary judgment based on a defense of qualified immunity is whether a reasonable official could have believed his or her actions were lawful in light of clearly established law and the

Neil Morgan v. Fairfield Cty., Ohio

903 F.3d 553 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Sep 6, 2018

The district court was correct to conclude that the law was not clearly established, so that the claims against the individual officers failed on qualified immunity grounds. … Specifically, the court held, qualified immunity was appropriate because even if intruding onto the curtilage violated the Fourth Amendment, it was not clearly established that such an action was a violation at the time of

Chana Wiley v. City of Columbus

36 F.4th 661 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 2, 2022

The qualified immunity question turns on “(1) whether the officer violated the plaintiff’s constitutional rights under the Fourth Amendment; and (2) whether that constitutional right was clearly established at the time of … “When federal qualified immunity and Ohio state-law immunity under Ohio Rev.

Dr. Lana Foster v. Shannon King

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Mar 18, 2026

But the second question, whether the law is clearly established, presents a set of doctrinal challenges unique to qualified immunity. … Accordingly, we address only step two of the qualified immunity analysis: whether the alleged conduct violated clearly established law.

Victor Smith v. City of Troy, Ohio

874 F.3d 938 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Nov 1, 2017

A public official is entitled to qualified immunity and, thus, is shielded from suit under § 1983 if his conduct does not violate a clearly established statutory or constitutional right of which a reasonable official would … Osting is not entitled to qualified immunity for this use of force.

David B. Klein v. Paul Long, Blackman Township Police Officer Phillip Rogers, Blackman Township Police Sergeant

275 F.3d 544 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Dec 21, 2001

Qualified Immunity In civil suits for money damages, government officials acting in their official capacity are entitled to qualified immunity for discretionary acts that do not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … We need not reach, then, the second part of the qualified immunity analysis delineated in Saucier — whether the constitutional right violated was clearly established.

Patrick A. Dadd v. Anoka County

827 F.3d 749 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jun 30, 2016

Anoka also rests its claim for qualified immunity on the argument that Dadd’s right to treatment in this particular situation was not clearly established, the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis. … Even if a complaint fairly alleges a violation of a constitutional right, an official is nevertheless entitled to qualified immunity if that right was not clearly established at the time of the violation.

Ahmad v. Furlong

435 F.3d 1196 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jan 18, 2006

If the plaintiff establishes a violation of a constitutional or statutory right, he must then demonstrate that the right at issue was clearly established at the time of the defendant’s unlawful conduct.” Id. … To be sure, Appellants’ motion did not clearly raise qualified immunity with respect to the RLUIPA claim.

John Benavidez v. County of San Diego

993 F.3d 1134 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Apr 12, 2021

“Qualified immunity shields government actors from civil liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 if ‘their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known … For a court to determine that a state actor is not entitled to qualified immunity under section 1983, there must be a constitutional violation on the facts alleged, and the constitutional right violated must be “clearly established

Booker v. Graham

974 F.3d 101 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Aug 31, 2020

While qualified immunity “does not require 14 a case directly on point for a right to be clearly established, existing precedent must 15 have placed the statutory or constitutional question beyond debate.” … of qualified immunity.

Vakilian v. Shaw

335 F.3d 509 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 2, 2003

Qualified immunity shields government officials acting within the scope of their official duties from civil liability insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established rights of which a reasonable person would … now ask whether the right was clearly established at the time of Shaw’s action.

Pyle v. Woods

874 F.3d 1257 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Nov 1, 2017

Database was not clearly established. … As in the Pyle matter, the district court concluded Detective Woods and Mayor Cullimore were entitled to qualified immunity because the constitutional right at issue was not clearly established.

Jeffers v. Gomez

267 F.3d 895 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Oct 3, 2001

The availability of qualified immunity in such a case naturally turns on whether it was "clearly established law" that Motive Y was impermissible. … Determining whether a public official is entitled to qualified immunity "requires a two-part inquiry: (1) Was the law governing the state official's conduct clearly established?