Case law

Marcus Hanks v. Randall Rogers

853 F.3d 738 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Apr 5, 2017

“Qualified immunity attaches when an official’s conduct ‘does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’” White v. … App’x 453, 459–60 (5th Cir. 2015) (unpublished) (construing Deville as clearly establishing that an officer should receive no qualified immunity if he “quickly escalate[s]” an encounter with a non-threatening, passively-resisting

Willingham v. Crooke

412 F.3d 553 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Jun 23, 2005

This is known as the defense of qualified immunity. Police officers are presumed to know about the clearly established constitutional rights of citizens. In this case, *558 Ms. … Government officials performing discretionary functions are entitled to qualified immunity from liability for civil damages to the extent that “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional

Narducci v. Moore

572 F.3d 313 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jul 9, 2009

The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials from lawsuits for damages when their conduct did not violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have … Burge, 874 F.2d 1201, 1204-05 (7th Cir.1988), we held that officials who searched a police officer’s desk and a briefcase found in his car were immune from suit under § 1983 because the search did not violate a clearly established

Laura Toms and Ira Chaiffetz v. Bob Taft Reginald J. Wilkinson Anthony J. Brigano Lawrence Belskis Mark Clark

338 F.3d 519 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 31, 2003

The second part of the qualified immunity inquiry asks whether the constitutional right was clearly established such that reasonable officials would know that their conduct violated the right. … Although courts engaging in qualified immunity analyses often consider only case law when determining whether the right at issue was clearly established, the Supreme Court in Hope also considered a Department of Justice report

Thomas v. Independence Township

463 F.3d 285 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Sep 14, 2006

6 of which the plaintiff complains violated clearly established law.” … Thus, “[u]nless the plaintiff’s allegations state a claim of violation of clearly established law, a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal before the commencement of discovery.”

Auriemma v. Rice

895 F.2d 338 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Feb 6, 1990

We must now turn to the second step of the qualified immunity inquiry and determine whether the alleged constitutional violation was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation. … immunity inquiry of whether a constitutional right is clearly established.

Nolen v. Jackson

102 F.3d 1187 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jan 6, 1997

has failed to allege a violation of a clearly established right.... … Gilley, 500 U.S. 226, 231, 111 S.Ct. 1789, 1793, 114 L.Ed.2d 277 (1991) (holding threshold question in a qualified immunity claim is whether a violation of a clearly established constitutional right has occurred);

Robert Sean Reed v. Campbell Cnty., Ky.

80 F.4th 734 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 30, 2023

Clearly Established Inquiry To satisfy the second prong of the qualified-immunity analysis, the officers’ unconstitutional conduct must violate clearly established law. Williams, 9 F.4th at 437. … Page 21 First, cases where we have found qualified immunity cannot clearly establish a constitutional violation by negative inference.

Robert Oglesby v. Amy Lesan

929 F.3d 526 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jul 3, 2019

Officer Hein and Deputy Lesan moved for summary judgment based on qualified immunity. … To defeat a motion for summary judgment based on qualified immunity, a plaintiff must show that the defendant violated his clearly-established rights. Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 232 (2009).

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.

Larsen v. Senate Of The Commonwealth Of Pennsylvania

154 F.3d 82 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Aug 11, 1998

immunity is from suit as well as from liability, so that "[u]nless the plaintiff's allegations state a claim of violation of clearly established law, a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal before … on qualified immunity grounds.

Cole v. Buchanan County School Board

328 F. App'x 204 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · May 14, 2009

established prong” of the qualified immunity analysis). … The “clearly established” prong of the qualified immunity analysis turns on “the objective legal reasonableness of the action, assessed in light of the legal rules that were clearly established at the time it was taken

DeAngelo Thomas-El v. Nicole Francis

99 F.4th 1115 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Apr 23, 2024

Francis and Lee appeal the district court’s denial of qualified immunity. … Finally, we consider whether the law clearly established an inmate’s right to hygiene supplies during the timeframe alleged in the complaint.

Arnette Rodgers v. 36th District Court

529 F. App'x 642 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 3, 2013

Katz, the Supreme Court established a two-step inquiry for determining whether an official is entitled to qualified immunity. 533 U.S. 194 , 201, 121 S.Ct. 2151 , 150 L.Ed.2d 272 (2001). … clearly established law at the time that it was committed.

Eddie Ford v. City of Yakima

706 F.3d 1188 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Feb 8, 2013

Clearly Established Right The officers are nevertheless entitled to qualified immunity if Ford’s right was not clearly established when the officers booked and jailed him. … Because the law concerning the right in question was clearly established at the time of Ford’s arrest, the officers are not entitled to qualified immunity. IV.

Prison Legal News v. Lehman

397 F.3d 692 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jan 31, 2005

immunity because they violated clearly established law. … It also properly granted qualified immunity to the prison officials on this claim because their actions did not violate clearly established law.

United States v. Jeffrey Lynn Franklin

235 F.3d 1165 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Dec 20, 2000

establish” that the predicate conviction qualified under § 924(e). … While in some cases a sentencing court properly might cumulate documentation of prior criminal convictions to find that such documentation “clearly establishes” a prior criminal conviction, in the context of an enhancement

Grice v. McVeigh

873 F.3d 162 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Sep 29, 2017

If McVeigh and Farina had a duty to intervene in those circumstances, that duty was not clearly established, and the defendants therefore enjoy qualified immunity on that claim. … Since, as we have already ruled, McVeigh did not violate clearly established law, Farina is entitled to qualified immunity as well. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, the order of the district court is reversed. .

Jamie Becker v. Zachary Effriechs

821 F.3d 920 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · May 12, 2016

to qualified immunity as a matter of law.” … to qualified immunity on this record.

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.”