Case law

Michael Hampton v. State of California

83 F.4th 754 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Oct 3, 2023

“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 known.’” … To be clearly established, the relevant right must have been defined more narrowly.

Wendy Pauluk v. Glenn Savage

836 F.3d 1117 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Sep 8, 2016

Qualified Immunity We apply a two-part analysis in qualified immunity cases. Kennedy, 439 F.3d at 1060 . … We conclude that the right was not clearly' established, and that Wojcik and Savage are therefore entitled to qualified immunity.

William Manery v. Jason Lee

124 F.4th 1073 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jan 7, 2025

An official will be protected by qualified immunity “un- less the plaintiff shows: ‘(1) that the official violated a statu- tory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was “clearly established” at the time of the … It was not clearly established that Lieutenant Lee’s use of deadly force was unreasonable, and, accordingly, he is entitled to qualified immunity.

Kayla Robinson v. Angela Hawkins

937 F.3d 1128 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Sep 5, 2019

In considering a defense of qualified immunity, the law must not be examined at a high level of generality: “The dispositive question is whether the violative nature of particular conduct is clearly established.” … Rulings declaring the violation of a “clearly established right” require careful attention, because “qualified immunity is important to ‘society as a whole,’ and because as ‘an immunity from suit,’ qualified immunity ‘is

Thomas Ingrassia v. Carol Dicknette

825 F.3d 891 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jun 13, 2016

“Qualified immunity may protect government officials from liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, but not if their conduct violated clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have … Defendants contend that, even if questions of material fact remain whether Ingrassia was denied adequate nutrition, the right to adequate nutrition was not clearly established, warranting qualified immunity.

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.

Krainski v. Nevada Ex Rel. Board of Regents

616 F.3d 963 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Aug 2, 2010

State officials are entitled to qualified immunity from suits for damages “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … As we have previously noted, the doctrine of qualified immunity protects state actors when the constitutional right at issue was not “clearly established” at the time of the actions at issue.

Jason Carter v. Mark Ludwick

139 F.4th 982 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jun 12, 2025

On count two, evidence concealment in violation of due process, the court granted qualified immunity because it was an “entirely novel claim” that was not clearly established. … Carter’s argument does not survive the clearly established prong of the qualified immunity analysis.

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.

Parker v. LeBlanc

73 F.4th 400 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jul 17, 2023

Qualified immunity involves answering two questions: (1) “whether the officer violated a constitutional right,” and (2) “whether the ‘right at issue was “clearly established” at the time of [the] alleged misconduct. … Unlike the plaintiffs in Joseph, Parker identified cases in his district court briefing, as well as in his briefing to this court, that addressed the clearly-established-law prong of the qualified immunity analysis

Robbins v. Wilkie

433 F.3d 755 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jan 10, 2006

That is, even if the right to exclude is clearly established, they are still entitled to qualified immunity because the right to be free from retaliation in the private property context is not clearly established. … Robbins has thus sufficiently alleged a violation of his clearly established Fifth Amendment rights, and Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity on Robbins' Bivens claim. 2.

Angela Johnson v. H.S. Caudill

475 F.3d 645 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Feb 2, 2007

Because a reasonable official in Sheriff Caudill’s position would not have considered the termination to violate Johnson’s clearly established constitutional rights, however, we find Sheriff Caudill entitled to qualified … “Absent clearly established law that proscribe[s] [an official’s] specific conduct, [he] should not be subjected to suit.” Id.

Mildred Robinson v. Daniel Arrugueta

415 F.3d 1252 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jul 7, 2005

The court found, however, that under the second step the right violated was not clearly established and thus Arrugueta was entitled to qualified immunity. … established, and thus, Arrugueta is entitled to qualified immunity under this step as well.

Jones v. Byrnes

585 F.3d 971 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Nov 9, 2009

protection of qualified immunity. … The first question in the qualified immunity analysis is whether the plaintiff *976 has established a prima facie case of a constitutional violation.

Atteberry v. Nocona General Hospital

430 F.3d 245 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Nov 3, 2005

clearly established law.” … Objectively Unreasonable “To be ‘clearly established’ for purposes of qualified immunity, ‘[t]he contours of the right must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates

Donald Gagne, Etc. v. City of Galveston, and Mike Putnal

805 F.2d 558 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Dec 9, 1986

qualified immunity from damages for his death. … But until then, the defense of qualified immunity remains available.

Collins v. School Board of Dade County, Florida

981 F.2d 1203 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jan 26, 1993

Most important for qualified immunity purposes, Loudermill established no bright line test for when a delay would become a constitutional violation. 4 See generally Barts v. … Joyner, 865 F.2d 1187, 1194 (11th Cir.1989) ("Harlow's 'clearly established' standard requires that a bright line be crossed" if defense of qualified immunity is to be overcome). 11 No controlling decision involved facts

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.

Hydrick v. McDaniel

500 F.3d 978 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Aug 30, 2007

Thus, there are two bodies of law from which we might draw “clearly established” law for qualified immunity purposes: first, where the SVPs claim a violation of a right that is clearly established even in the prison context … b)(6) based on qualified immunity. 3.

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.’”