Case law

Albright v. Rodriguez

51 F.3d 1531 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Apr 7, 1995

Defendant contends he was entitled to summary judgment based on qualified immunity because Plaintiff failed to show he violated clearly established law. … Further, a defendant is entitled to qualified immunity if the plaintiff fails to show that the law was clearly established. See, e.g., Pallottino v.

Jacqueline Abel, Cross-Appellants v. Harold Miller, Cross-Appellees

824 F.2d 1522 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jul 21, 1987

On the issue of qualified immunity, the district judge stated: “I have thrown it out.” Id. at 1645. “I think there is a clearly established right ... [w]ith respect to all of the claims.” Id. at 1646. … We recently explained: [The Harlow qualified immunity] test would have little bite if a right “clearly established” at any level of generality could survive it.

Simon v. City of N.Y.

893 F.3d 83 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jun 21, 2018

Qualified Immunity State executive officials "are entitled to qualified immunity under § 1983 unless (1) they violated a federal statutory or constitutional right, and (2) the unlawfulness of their conduct was 'clearly established … Qualified Immunity for the Seizure and Detention on August 12, 2008 Finally, we consider whether defendants' conduct on August 12 violated the Fourth Amendment and whether any violation was clearly established as of August

James F. Robinson v. Solano County Brian Cauwells, Solano County Sheriff's Deputy Officer Gary Faulkner, Solano County Sheriff's Deputy Officer

278 F.3d 1007 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Feb 4, 2002

established in this circuit in 1995 to override the officers’ claim of qualified immunity. … Conclusion We hold that Officers Cauwells and Faulkner were entitled to qualified immunity on the federal excessive force claim because the Fourth Amendment law gov *1017 erning their conduct was not clearly established at

Bridget Murphy v. A. Engelhart

933 F.3d 1027 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Aug 14, 2019

Qualified immunity shields an officer if his “conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. … Accordingly, Engelhart’s takedown did not violate a clearly established constitutional right.

Jacqueline Washington v. L. Newsom R. Phillips J. Thomas the City of Southfield and the Southfield Police Department

977 F.2d 991 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Dec 21, 1992

When a claim to qualified immunity is raised within the context of a motion for summary judgment, the non-movant must allege facts sufficient to indicate that the act in question violated clearly established law at the time … Thus, the plaintiff must effectively pass two hurdles when facing a defendant on summary judgment who claims qualified immunity. First, the allegations must “state a claim of violation of clearly established law.”

Marcus Mote v. Debra Walthall

902 F.3d 500 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Aug 31, 2018

immunity as a defense.” 3 The only pure legal question we may answer at the qualified immunity stage is “whether a given course of conduct would be objectively unreasonable in light of clearly established law.” 4 … to the clearly-established prong of the qualified immunity analysis, and we confine our analysis accordingly. 5 Kinney, 367 F.3d at 347 (quoting Wagner v.

Romero v. Kitsap County

931 F.2d 624 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · May 1, 1991

However, when qualified immunity is at stake, a court must first determine whether the law has been clearly established. Tribble, 860 F.2d at 324 . … By extension, the qualified immunity defense extends to conduct that does not violate clearly established statutory, constitutional, or treaty-based rights 6 The Fourth Circuit observes: Often trial can yet be avoided if

Patricia Mueller, Paul Mueller v. Douglas Tinkham and Michael Hanlen

162 F.3d 999 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Dec 16, 1998

his actions violated a clearly established right. … Qualified immunity protects “state actors from personal liability where their actions, though unlawful, are nevertheless objectively reasonable in light of the clearly established law.” Rogers, 133 F.3d at 1119.

Billy Tyler v. Tom Barton and Frank O. Gunter

901 F.2d 689 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Apr 26, 1990

An exception exists, however, where a court denies summary judgment on the issue of qualified immunity because qualified immunity provides “immunity from suit rather than a mere defense to liability.” … Thus, we conclude that Barton and Gunter did not violate any clearly established constitutional right. Accordingly, the doctrine of qualified immunity applies to Barton and Gunter. III.

Walter v. Morton

33 F.3d 1240 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Aug 30, 1994

the claim of qualified immunity. … If he was discharged in retaliation to his report, this would constitute a violation of a clearly established constitutional right.

Terri Vinyard v. Steve Wilson

311 F.3d 1340 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Nov 14, 2002

be clearly unlawful, summary judgment based on qualified immunity is appropriate.” … the law applicable to particular circumstances clearly and to overcome qualified immunity even in the absence of case law.”)

Livingston Manners v. Officer Ronald Cannella

891 F.3d 959 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jun 4, 2018

As for the officers, they were entitled to qualified immunity because they violated no clearly established constitutional right. … Qualified immunity is appropriate if the officers’ conduct did “not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Hill v.

James v. Rowlands

606 F.3d 646 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · May 26, 2010

We conclude that, even if such rights existed, they were not clearly established. We therefore affirm the grant of qualified immunity on these two claims. … We conclude, however, that James’s right to this information was not clearly established and that the offi- cials are therefore entitled to qualified immunity on these claims.

Samuel L. Pfannstiel v. City of Marion, Doyle Elliot and James A. Pearce, Mike Earl, Harvey Faulkner and Waldon Boecker, Etc.

918 F.2d 1178 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Dec 12, 1990

When a defendant raises a qualified immunity defense, “whether the conduct of which the plaintiff complains violated clearly established law” is an “essentially legal question.” … Unit A Jan.1981) was clearly established law.

Bailey v. Iles

87 F.4th 275 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Nov 21, 2023

However, “[a] qualified immunity defense alters the usual summary judgment burden of proof” because the plaintiff, to overcome qualified immunity, “must rebut the defense by establishing a genuine [dispute of material … An officer is entitled to qualified immunity “if there is no violation, or if the conduct did not violate law clearly established at the time.” Id.

T.R. v. Lamar County Board of Education, The

25 F.4th 877 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Feb 4, 2022

“A right may be clearly established for qualified immunity purposes in one of three ways: (1) case law with indistin- guishable facts clearly establishing the constitutional right; (2) a broad statement of principle within … Since the Defendants’ actions violated a clearly established constitutional right, we conclude that the Defendants are not enti- tled to qualified immunity.

Reed v. Taylor

923 F.3d 411 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · May 2, 2019

The district court granted summary judgment to the officials based on qualified immunity, holding that the threat of criminal prosecution wasn't "other legal process" under clearly established law. Reed appealed. … "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.'

Bingham v. City of Manhattan Beach

341 F.3d 939 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Aug 28, 2003

He posits a novel twist to the “clearly established” inquiry, contending that because it is not clearly established that damages may be obtained under § 1983 for an unlawful traffic stop, qualified immunity should apply. … Rather, in determining whether qualified immunity is available, those cases merely inquire whether the right at issue was clearly established in law.

Ralston v. Cannon

884 F.3d 1060 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Mar 13, 2018

The district court denied Cannon’s request for qualified immunity. … Procedural Background Cannon filed a motion for summary judgment, claiming he was entitled to qualified immunity. 2 He asserted that to establish a violation of the Free Exercise Clause, Ralston “must show that his