Case law

Bibeau v. Pacific Northwest Research Foundation Inc.

188 F.3d 1105 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Aug 19, 1999

answered for purposes of qualified immunity is whether the law was clearly established at the time of the alleged acts. … Without more involvement in the experiments, they did not violate any of Bibeau’s clearly established rights, and therefore are entitled to qualified immunity.

Rudley v. Little Rock Police Dep't

935 F.3d 651 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Sep 3, 2019

The officers are entitled to qualified immunity unless (1) the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to Rudley, establishes a violation of a constitutional or statutory right, and (2) the right was clearly established … We reversed the denial of qualified immunity, concluding that no precedent clearly established that Ernst’s takedown was unreasonable at the time of the incident.

Francis Dougherty v. Philadelphia School District

772 F.3d 979 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Nov 21, 2014

“Qualified immunity shields government officials from civil damages liability unless the official violated a statutory or constitutional right that was clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct.” … Having found a violation of Dougherty’s First Amendment rights, the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis requires us to determine whether that right was “clearly established.”

Morton H. Halperin v. Henry A. Kissinger

807 F.2d 180 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Dec 5, 1986

The District Court granted summary judgment to . defendants on qualified immunity grounds, reasoning that the wiretap did not violate clearly established law since it had a rational nexus to national security. … We must determine whether the claims based on these requirements are subject to the qualified immunity defense. As to the warrant requirement, the answer is plain, since it was not yet clearly established.

Maraziti v. First Interstate Bank

953 F.2d 520 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jan 3, 1992

II A federal official’s assertion of qualified immunity based upon the plaintiff’s failure to state a “violation of clearly established law” is a question of law. Mitchell v. … It is true that “[s]pecific binding precedent is not required to show that a right is clearly established for qualified immunity purposes.” Brady v.

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.”)

Heidemann v. Rother

84 F.3d 1021 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · May 23, 1996

For reversal, all of the defendants, including Joy, argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity as a matter of law because plaintiffs have failed to allege a violation of any clearly established constitutional or federal … In Behrens , the defendant, an official with the Federal Home Loan Bank Board, had moved for summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds, arguing that his actions had not violated any clearly established right.

Barnes v. Furman

629 F. App'x 52 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Oct 22, 2015

Qualified immunity shields a government official from liability for civil damages “if his conduct did not violate plaintiffs clearly established rights or if it would have been objectively reasonable for the official to believe … Defendants do not dispute that the confiscation of Barnes’s Tsalot-Kob religious head covering was unlawful and instead argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity because there is no clearly established law permitting

Michael Kopec v. Tyrone Tate, Officer Township of Whitemarsh

361 F.3d 772 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Mar 17, 2004

Qualified immunity is intended to shield government officials performing discretionary functions, including police officers, “from liability from civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established … A defendant has the burden to establish that he is entitled to qualified immunity. See Beers-Capitol v. Whetzel, 256 F.3d 120 , 142 n. 15 (3d Cir.2001). The Supreme Court held in Saucier v.

Jones v. Clark

630 F.3d 677 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jan 14, 2011

- eral right at issue was clearly established at the time that the alleged violation occurred. … III As we mentioned, Officers Clark and Kaminski are entitled to immunity if their conduct did not violate clearly established constitutional rights of which a rea- sonable person would have known.

Edmiston v. Borrego

75 F.4th 551 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Aug 1, 2023

“Qualified immunity protects officers from suit unless their conduct violates a clearly established [statutory or] constitutional right.” Converse v. … Regarding the second prong of the qualified-immunity analysis, for a right to be “clearly established” it must be “sufficiently clear that every reasonable official would have understood that what he is doing violates

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.

Linda Sexton v. Thomas Cernuto

18 F.4th 177 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Nov 8, 2021

Qualified immunity “shields government officials from ‘liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of 2 The district … The qualified immunity analysis has two parts.

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

Gonzalez, Gonzalez, Gonzalez v. Reno, Meissner, Holder, Mills, INS Agent

325 F.3d 1228 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Mar 25, 2003

The defense of qualified immunity completely protects government officials performing discretionary functions from suit in their individual capacities unless their conduct violates “clearly established statutory or constitutional … It is therefore appropriate for a district court to grant the defense of qualified immunity at the motion to dismiss stage if the complaint “fails to allege the violation of a clearly established constitutional right.”

Eunice Winzer v. Kaufman County

916 F.3d 464 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Feb 18, 2019

alleged show the officer’s conduct violated a constitutional right;’ and second, ‘whether the right was clearly established.’” … The majority has correctly concluded that Officer Hinds is entitled to qualified immunity due to the lack of clearly established law.

Jo Anne Allison v. Dept. of Corrections

94 F.3d 494 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Aug 30, 1996

See id. at 2156 (noting that a denial of qualified immunity is immediately appealable so long as it turns on an issue of law; namely, "the purely legal issue [of] what law was `clearly established'"). … The clearly established law of Simon is relevant to determining whether the defendants acted reasonably at the time of Allison's discharge (the issue in this limited qualified immunity appeal), but will control the merits

Fadwa Safar v. Lisa Tingle

859 F.3d 241 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Jun 7, 2017

Determining whether qualified immunity applies therefore presents a two-pronged inquiry: “whether the facts ... make out a violation of a constitutional right” and “whether the right at issue was ‘clearly established’ at … Rather, the “clearly established law must be ‘particularized’ to the facts of the case” so as to avoid transforming qualified immunity into “a rule of virtually unqualified liability.” Id.

Acevedo-Garcia v. Vera-Monroig

204 F.3d 1 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Feb 17, 2000

work conditions and responsibilities was "clearly established." … Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818-19 (1982) ("If the law was clearly established, the immunity defense ordinarily should fail . . . .").

Get Away Club, Inc. v. Vic Coleman, Jim Snyder

969 F.2d 664 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jul 13, 1992

“If the law was clearly established, the [qualified] immunity defense ordinarily should fail, since a reasonably competent public official should know the law *667 governing [one's] conduct." Harlow v. … Accordingly, the troopers are entitled to qualified immunity on Get Away’s civil claim for monetary damages.