Case law

Rush v. Perryman

579 F.3d 908 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Sep 3, 2009

The court denied the Board qualified immunity with respect to Rush’s First and Fourteenth Amendment claims, finding that Rush’s rights under those provisions were clearly established. … The court concluded that the Board was not entitled to qualified immunity because Rush’s right to a name-clearing hearing was clearly established.

Smith v. McCarthy

349 F. App'x 851 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Oct 28, 2009

not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … to qualified immunity.

Dodds v. Richardson

614 F.3d 1185 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Aug 6, 2010

As Justice Thomas explained: In conducting qualified immunity analysis ..., courts do not merely ask whether, taking the plaintiffs allegations as true, the plaintiffs clearly established rights were violated. … For instance, an allegation that Defendant A violated a plaintiffs clearly established rights does nothing to overcome Defendant B’s assertion of qualified immunity, absent some allegation that Defendant B was responsible

Charles Waters v. B. Madson

921 F.3d 725 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Apr 11, 2019

To overcome qualified immunity, a plaintiff must allege (1) a violation of his statutory or constitutional rights, and (2) that “the right at issue was ‘clearly established’ at the time of [the] defendant’s alleged misconduct … De La Rosa, 852 F.3d at 745-46 (examining arguable reasonable suspicion under the “clearly established” prong of qualified immunity).

McGrath v. Gillis

44 F.3d 567 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jan 6, 1995

“Unless the plaintiffs allegations state a claim of violation of clearly established law, a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal before the commencement of discovery.” … . *570 In order to defeat a claim of qualified immunity, a plaintiff must allege a cognizable violation of a constitutional right clearly established at the time of the alleged misconduct.

Guan v. City of New York

37 F.4th 797 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jun 17, 2022

Qualified Immunity Even where actual probable cause does not exist, police officers may be entitled to qualified immunity from a § 1983 false arrest claim if their actions did not violate "clearly established … Accordingly, we hold that Boyle and Larasaavedra are protected by qualified immunity because it was not clearly established when they arrested Guan in 2017 that they had to have probable cause to arrest her for an emergency

Donald M. Johnson v. Bob Odom

910 F.2d 1273 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Sep 7, 1990

An appeal may be taken from a finding against qualified immunity where the issue involved is the purely legal one of “whether the legal norms allegedly violated by the defendant were clearly established at the time of the … qualified immunities was proper.

James Boyd v. Mickey Owen and Leslie Foott

481 F.3d 520 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Mar 22, 2007

That does not end the inquiry, however, because qualified immunity nevertheless protects the defendants unless the constitutional right that was violated was clearly established. … He has failed to meet his burden of demonstrating that the constitutional violation was clearly established, and the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity.

Babb v. Dorman

33 F.3d 472 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Sep 19, 1994

"Qualified" or "good faith" immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions from liability "unless their conduct violates 'clearly established statutory … Moreover, his proposed second amended complaint added nothing to aid in the determination of the qualified immunity issue except for the legal conclusion that Dorman's actions violated clearly established law.

Thomas v. Durastanti

607 F.3d 655 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jun 4, 2010

Far from showing that Agent Durastanti violated clearly established law, Ryder suggests that Agent Durastanti’s actions comported with clearly established law. … Moreover, we have explained that even if the video does not conclusively establish the speed of the Lincoln, qualified immunity is warranted. Given Mr.

Toby J. Sutton v. Patricia Bailey

702 F.3d 444 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Dec 3, 2012

Appellants are entitled to qualified immunity unless their conduct violated “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. … Qualified immunity “depends upon the objective reasonableness of [the alleged misconduct] as measured by reference to clearly established law.” Schleck, 939 F.2d at 641(quotations omitted).

Edward Shaw v. City of Selma

884 F.3d 1093 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Mar 7, 2018

“Qualified immunity protects government officials performing discretionary functions from suits in their individual capacities unless their conduct violates clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … Instead of clearly establishing the law against Williams, binding precedent clearly establishes it in his favor. See Singletary v.

Martin v. D.C. Metropolitan Police Department

812 F.2d 1425 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Feb 10, 1987

(footnotes omitted); Mitchell, 105 S.Ct. at 2816 (defendant entitled to dismissal on qualified immunity plea unless plaintiff states a claim of violation of clearly established law). … The “clearly established law” and “objective reasonableness” facets of current qualified immunity doctrine tug in opposite directions where, as here, the “clearly established law” itself contains a subjective component.

Giebel v. Sylvester

244 F.3d 1182 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Apr 12, 2001

was not clearly established at the time of Sylvester’s actions. … not entitled to qualified immunity.

Pittman v. Nelms

87 F.3d 116 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Jun 26, 1996

The immunity level consists of two sub-issues — whether the law governing the violation was clearly established at the time of the incident, Siegert v. … But it invokes immunity prematurely if the facts indicate no constitutional violation, clearly established or otherwise. . Like Pittman, Graham grounded his claim on multiple provisions of the Constitution.

Rodriguez v. Phillips

66 F.3d 470 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Sep 15, 1995

Moreover, defendants' actions at that time must have been objectively unreasonable in light of clearly established federal law; otherwise, those actors are entitled to qualified immunity. … Summary judgment is particularly appropriate when the qualified immunity defense is based on a showing that an asserted right was not clearly established since the inquiry as to whether a right was or was not clearly established

Elwell v. Byers

699 F.3d 1208 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Nov 14, 2012

The defendants asserted qualified immunity with respect to both claims. … To overcome a defense of qualified immunity, a plaintiff must show: (1) that the official’s actions violated a constitutional right and (2) that the right was clearly established at the time of the action. Id.

Alford v. Haner

333 F.3d 972 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jun 23, 2003

Defendants claimed they were entitled to qualified immunity and had probable cause for the arrest. … The first question under the two-part inquiry for determining whether the officers are entitled to qualified immunity is whether the “law governing the official’s conduct [was] clearly established.” Act-Up!/Portland v.

Paul Romero v. Damon Fay, Bob Stover, Chief of Police, and Albuquerque, City of John Doe, Albuquerque Police Officers

45 F.3d 1472 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jan 25, 1995

In his response, Plaintiff asserted that Defendants were not entitled to qualified immunity because they had violated clearly established law of which a reasonable police officer would have known. … Specifically, Defendants argue they are entitled to qualified immunity on all of Plaintiffs claims because Plaintiff failed to show that: (1) Defendants arrested Plaintiff without probable cause; (2) clearly established law

Gary T. Mitchell v. Bernie C. Thompson

18 F.3d 425 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Mar 7, 1994

Analysis The issue here presented is one which we are all too familiar — whether a public official is entitled to qualified immunity from a civil suit because the law was not clearly established at the time of his alleged … Under the prevailing precedent, unless the law is clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct, a defendant is entitled to qualified immunity.