Case law

Brad Rush v. City of Philadelphia

78 F.4th 610 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Aug 30, 2023

Dennis and denied Officer Nicoletti qualified immunity. … However, qualified immunity exonerates even unreasonable officer conduct unless (1) the officer violated a constitutional right, and (2) the right was clearly established, “such that ‘it would [have been] clear to a reasonable

Cavanaugh v. Woods Cross City

718 F.3d 1244 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jun 12, 2013

immunity, which involves both whether there was a constitutional violation and whether the violation was clearly established. … the clearly established law found by the jury.”

Cavanaugh v. Woods Cross City

625 F.3d 661 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Nov 3, 2010

Officer Davis moved for summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds, claiming that his actions did not violate the constitution and, if they did, that the law was not clearly established at the time. See Aplts. … Clearly Established Denial of qualified immunity is appropriate if the officer violated law that was “clearly established” at the time of his or her conduct. See, e.g., Perez v.

Eves v. LePage

927 F.3d 575 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Jun 19, 2019

Qualified Immunity Analysis We move directly to the second step of the qualified immunity analysis and ask whether Governor LePage's alleged conduct violated "clearly established" federal … Convinced the defendants' actions, if proven, would violate clearly-established law, the district judge denied them qualified immunity at the motion-to-dismiss stage. Id.

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

Irizarry v. Yehia

38 F.4th 1282 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jul 11, 2022

The district court nonetheless held that Officer Yehia was entitled to qualified immunity because Mr. Irizarry had not shown a violation of clearly established law. … Irizarry has shown a violation of clearly established law. Officer Yehia is not entitled to qualified immunity. III.

Belinda Marie Fitzpatrick v. Kyle Hanney

138 F.4th 991 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · May 30, 2025

Qualified immunity shields government officials from suit unless those officials (1) violated a constitutional right that (2) was clearly established when the conduct occurred. Bell v. … Because the undisputed facts do not show that Simon plausibly violated Fitzpatrick’s clearly established rights, Simon is entitled to qualified immunity on Fitzpatrick’s Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment claims.

Hills v. Comwlth of KY

457 F.3d 583 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 9, 2006

The district court’s denial of qualified immunity in this case was based on the conclusion that “[u]nder the clearly established Kentucky law setting forth Mr. … Siddiqui qualified immunity Dr.

White v. McKinley

519 F.3d 806 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Feb 26, 2008

Consequently, to be viable, White’s claim must allege bad faith to implicate a clearly established right under Brady. … Because Richard is asserting the qualified immunity defense, he has the burden to establish the relevant predicate facts for its application. He has not done so.

Barbara Donald v. Tyler Norris

131 F.4th 1255 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Mar 13, 2025

We need address only whether Burrell’s right to some other treatment was clearly established because that answer resolves the qualified-immunity question. … Indeed, the formulation from the Hill dicta would eliminate the “clearly established” part of the qualified-immunity analysis as we know it.

Karen Bonitz v. Michael v. Fair, Karen Bonitz v. Michael v. Fair, Appeal of William Shaughnessy

804 F.2d 164 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Nov 3, 1986

When a government official asserts a defense of qualified immunity, his argument is that, even assuming the plaintiff’s allegations are true, he is immune from suit because the law allegedly violated was not clearly established … ” were clearly established.

Jacob Clark v. Bernadette Stone

998 F.3d 287 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · May 19, 2021

They also argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity on this issue because there is no clearly established right to use corporal punishment on children. … App’x 469, 481 (6th Cir. 2019) (“A single district court opinion is not enough to pronounce a right is clearly established for purposes of qualified immunity.”)

Estate of Escobedo v. Bender

600 F.3d 770 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Apr 5, 2010

Clearly Established The Defendants claim that they are entitled to qualified immunity because the law was not clearly established on July 19, 2005, to place them on notice that the use of tear gas and flash bang devices in … established right and therefore the Defendants are not protected by qualified immunity. 2.

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?

Randy Berkshire v. Debra Dahl

928 F.3d 520 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 28, 2019

“In civil suits for money damages, government officials acting in their official capacity are entitled to qualified immunity for discretionary acts which do not violate clearly established law of which a reasonable person … Page 23 Accordingly, Berkshire has produced sufficient evidence to show a violation of a clearly established constitutional right, and he can survive Sergeant Nelson’s assertion 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.

Alhadji Bayon v. Marshall Berkebile

29 F.4th 850 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Mar 28, 2022

The officers moved for summary judgment, asserting that their use of force was justified and that, in any event, they were entitled to qualified immunity because their conduct did not violate clearly established law. … The officers assert they are entitled to qualified immunity because “no clearly established law put them on notice that their con- 16 duct would violate Bayon’s rights.”

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.

Dunn v. Castro

621 F.3d 1196 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Sep 14, 2010

On review of a denial of a motion to dismiss based on qualified immunity, we review de novo whether governing law was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation. See Mabe v. … [3] A court, when deciding whether there has been a viola- tion of a “clearly established right” for qualified immunity, must strike the proper balance in defining that right. In Ander- son v.

John H. Chambers v. Colorado Department of Corrections Margaret Heil, in Her Individual and Official Capacity

205 F.3d 1237 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Mar 7, 2000

Chambers insisted the sex was consensual, and the police evidently were unable to establish otherwise. … Because the state of the law was not established when these actions were taken, the prison officials named in this lawsuit are entitled to qualified immunity. Thus, Mr. Chambers’ claim for damages cannot be sustained.