Case law

Herrera v. City of Albuquerque

589 F.3d 1064 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Dec 14, 2009

O’Brien [wa]s entitled to qualified immunity and [thus was] immune from suit.” Id. at 120. … Qualified immunity “The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional

Zahra v. Town Of Southold

48 F.3d 674 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Feb 21, 1995

See Natale, 927 F.2d at 105 ("The threshold issue in determining the applicability of [the] qualified immunity defense is whether [the plaintiffs] had a 'clearly established right' to the permits at issue."); see also Amsden … th[at] 'clearly established' right[ ]."

Phillips v. Roane County, Tenn.

534 F.3d 531 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 25, 2008

Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, “government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … Was the Law Clearly Established?

Corona v. City of Clovis

959 F.3d 1278 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · May 27, 2020

5 clearly established at the relevant time. … Specifically, when a defendant raises the qualified- immunity defense at summary judgment, the plaintiff must establish (1) the defendant violated a statutory or constitutional right and (2) that right was clearly established

Robert Stewart v. Donald Donges

915 F.2d 572 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Sep 17, 1990

The test for qualified immunity is whether defendants violated “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. … Once a defendant raises the defense of qualified immunity as a defense to an action, “[t]he plaintiff carries the burden of convincing the court that the law was clearly established.”

Charles Pierre v. Sandra Doorley City of Rochester

Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Nov 25, 2020

Pierre’s alleged constitutional right—timely access to post-conviction exculpatory evidence was and is not “clearly established.” Pearson v. … Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 231 (2009) (explaining that qualified immunity “protects government officials from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional

Elder v. Holloway

975 F.2d 1388 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Dec 19, 1991

In opposition to the officers’ motion for summary judgment on qualified immunity, Elder proffered three out-of-state cases to show that the law was clearly established that a warrant was required to make a “constructive entry … On the issue of qualified immunity, Elder argued in the district court that the law was clearly established that an Idaho warrant was required to make a “constructive *1391 entry” over the threshold.

Terry A. Veney v. Michael Hogan Carol Hernandez Frank D. Fleischer and Martha Knicely

70 F.3d 917 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jan 24, 1996

For a law to be “clearly established” in the context 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 that right. … The trial court need not deny a defendant the right to qualified immunity simply because a complaint adequately alleges violation of clearly established law.

Micah Jessop v. City of Fresno

918 F.3d 1031 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Mar 20, 2019

ANALYSIS “The doctrine of 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 … Assuming that to be true, however, the City Officers are entitled to qualified immunity because that right was not clearly established.

Elmer Pace and Linda Pace v. City of Des Moines, Iowa, and Brian Danner

201 F.3d 1050 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jan 13, 2000

of clearly established law.” … have violated plaintiffs clearly established right.”

Grantham v. Trickey

21 F.3d 289 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Apr 12, 1994

balancing test, it can rarely be considered “clearly established” for purposes of the Harlow qualified immunity standard.... ... … We then addressed the city council members’ assertion of qualified immunity and concluded that qualified immunity was not appropriate because Casey’s right of free speech was clearly established. Id. at 804.

Bletz v. Gribble

641 F.3d 743 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · May 27, 2011

Generally, summary judgment based on qualified immunity is proper if the officer was not on notice that his conduct was clearly unlawful. Higgason v. Stephens, 288 F.3d 868, 876 (6th Cir. 2002). … However, we reverse the district court’s decision denying Denny qualified immunity.

Fletcher Small v. Officer Brock

963 F.3d 539 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 26, 2020

Of course, our holding does not mean that Small’s right was clearly established for the purpose of qualified immunity. But we need not resolve the issue of qualified immunity in this appeal. … But even if you doubted this precedent, there’s little doubt that the alleged constitutional violation here wasn’t clearly established and thus that the defendant is entitled to qualified immunity.

Panagoulakos v. Yazzie

741 F.3d 1126 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Dec 20, 2013

“When a defendant asserts qualified immunity at summary judgment, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to show that: (1) the defendant violated a constitutional right and (2) the constitutional right was clearly established … In short, Officer Yazzie is entitled to qualified immunity because no clearly established law imposed on her a duty to release Panagoulakos following his lawful arrest after the traffic stop. REVERSED. .

Sanchez v. Swyden

139 F.3d 464 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Apr 16, 1998

Under the test for qualified immunity, Sanchez has failed to prove that he was deprived of a clearly established constitutional right. … The Doctrine of Qualified Immunity The well-established test for qualified immunity requires us to engage in a two-step inquiry.

Kimberly Burns-Fisher v. Anna Romero-Lehrer

57 F.4th 421 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Jan 13, 2023

Pendleton, 249 F.3d 279, 285 (4th Cir. 2001) (“A district court’s denial of qualified immunity is immediately appealable under the collateral order doctrine, because qualified immunity confers immunity … Because it was not clearly established at the time of the incident that a defendant’s failure to act gives rise to a state-created danger claim, we conclude that Appellant is entitled to qualified immunity

Musso v. Hourigan

836 F.2d 736 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jan 5, 1988

In reaching this result, the Court noted that the doctrine of qualified immunity rests on the belief that "where an official's duties legitimately require action in which clearly established rights are not implicated, the … Qualified Immunity 16 Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, a government official performing discretionary functions is protected from personal liability to the extent that his "conduct does not violate clearly established

Kahle v. Leonard

477 F.3d 544 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Feb 12, 2007

If the right was not clearly established, then the officer is protected by qualified immunity. 1. … Qualified Immunity 37 The second question in the qualified-immunity analysis requires us to consider whether the right that Malone allegedly violated was clearly established at the time of the violation.

William R. Schwartzman, M.D. v. Fred Valenzuela Bamford Frankland, David Swoap

846 F.2d 1209 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · May 17, 1988

Qualified Immunity. The appellants next argue that the district court should have granted them summary judgment based upon qualified immunity against suit. … clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”

Brown v. Flowers

974 F.3d 1178 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Sep 14, 2020

Because we find our existing caselaw on the sexual abuse of inmates clearly established the contours of Brown’s rights, we affirm the denial of qualified immunity. … Under that standard, we must grant Flowers qualified immunity unless “(1) a reasonable jury could find facts supporting a violation of a constitutional right, which (2) was clearly established at the time of [Flowers’s