Case law

Garramone v. Romo

94 F.3d 1446 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Aug 27, 1996

This is hardly the language of a clearly established right. … We hold that Garramone’s right to counsel under the Due Process Clause was not clearly established, and thus Romo and Sanchez are entitled to qualified immunity on that claim.

Alvarado v. Whitaker

914 F.3d 8 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Jan 24, 2019

See id.; see also id. at 22 ("This would be a different case if the evidence clearly established that Castañeda had guilty knowledge[.]"); cf. Negusie v. … I.N.S., 434 F.3d 136, 144 (2d Cir. 2006) (culpability established by awareness). Alvarado also cites several cases that discuss what conduct constitutes "assistance." See Hernandez v.

Tanner v. Hardy

764 F.2d 1024 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Jun 21, 1985

It is a well established principle that qualified immunity, which is the most in the way of immunity to which the defendants are entitled, see Procunier v. … Navarette, 434 U.S. 555, 561 , 98 S.Ct. 855, 859 , 55 L.Ed.2d 24 (1978) (State prison officials and officers were not entitled to absolute immunity in § 1983 action but were entitled to qualified immunity), is a matter on

Carmona v. Olvera

126 F.4th 1091 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jan 28, 2025

“Qualified immunity protects officers from suit unless their conduct violates a clearly established [statutory or] constitutional right.” Converse v. City of Kemah, 961 F.3d 771, 774 (5th Cir. 2020) (quoting Mace v. … And, as noted, because Plaintiff fails to allege violation of a constitutional right, we do not reach the second prong of the qualified-immunity test—whether that right was clearly established at the time of the violation

Sease Beard v. Doris Falkenrath

97 F.4th 1109 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Apr 4, 2024

At a minimum, the defendants have not established “qualified immunity [from] the face of the complaint.” Bradford, 394 F.3d at 1015. B. … For another, Beard’s argument would effectively flip the qualified-immunity burden.

Varrone v. Bilotti

123 F.3d 75 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Aug 18, 1997

It held that, for purposes of qualified immunity, it was clearly established at the time that strip searches of prison visitors could be made only when based upon reasonable suspicion. Varrone v. … The law was “clearly established” if the circuit’s decisions “clearly fox-eshadow” a particular ruling on the issue. Id. Decisions of other circuits also may indicate whether the law was clearly established.

Parsons v. City of Pontiac

533 F.3d 492 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 22, 2008

But under § 1983, “an arresting agent is entitled to qualified immunity if he or she could reasonably (even if erroneously) have believed that the arrest was lawful, in light of clearly established law and the information … Detectives Martin and McKinney, however, are entitled to qualified immunity unless their actions “were objectively unreasonable in light of the clearly established right.” See id.

Dorsey v. Barber

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Feb 21, 2008

such coercive measures had not been so clearly established by prior case law. … Haugen, 543 U.S. 194, 198-99 (2004) (making it clear that, to overcome qualified immunity, the right allegedly violated must be shown to have been clearly established in a particularized and relevant sense).

Iving Thomas Barbara Thomas v. City of Dallas, Darwin Gaines Aquilla Allen

175 F.3d 358 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · May 11, 1999

V To determine whether Allen is entitled to qualified immunity, we must de *364 termine (1) whether the Thomases stated a claim for violation of a constitutional right; (2) whether this constitutional right was established … at the time of the actions underlying this lawsuit; and (3) whether the Thomases established that Allen’s conduct was objectively unreasonable in light of the legal rules clearly established.

Anastausia Sepulveda v. R. Ramirez, Cresa B. Appleby, Parole Agent Jim Ludwig

967 F.2d 1413 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jun 26, 1992

We hold that Officer Ludwig was not entitled to summary judgment based on qualified immunity. At the time of Officer Ludwig’s alleged actions, Ninth Circuit law clearly established Sepulveda’s right to bodily privacy. … Any right she may have in not having a parole officer observe her while she produced a urine sample, however, in my view is not so “clearly established” as to abrogate appellants’ qualified immunity.

Gabrielle Eddy v. Virgin Islands Water And Power Authority

256 F.3d 204 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jul 10, 2001

does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known." … alleged a violation of a clearly established constitutional right.

Ramirez v. Department of Corrections

222 F.3d 1238 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Aug 11, 2000

As mentioned, when a defendant claims qualified immunity, the plaintiff must establish both that 1) the defendant’s conduct violated a federal or constitutional right, and 2) the right violated was clearly established at … clearly established at the time of Defendants actions.

Ledura Watkins v. Robert Healy

986 F.3d 648 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jan 28, 2021

clearly established law. … qualified immunity that would attach.”

Mary Ann Collier v. Fred O. Dickinson, III

477 F.3d 1306 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Feb 12, 2007

Qualified immunity offers protection for government officials, acting within their discretionary authority,1 who are sued in their individual capacities as long as “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … The words of the DPPA alone are “specific enough to establish clearly the law applicable to particular conduct and circumstances and to overcome qualified immunity.” Vinyard v.

Adam Kanuszewski v. Mich. Dep't of Health & Human Servs.

927 F.3d 396 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 10, 2019

To overcome qualified immunity, Plaintiffs must show that "the right at issue was clearly established at the time of the defendant's alleged misconduct." Barker , 649 F.3d at 433 . … Thus, Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity because Plaintiffs have failed to show that "the right at issue was clearly established at the time of [their] alleged misconduct." Barker , 649 F.3d at 433 .

Lee Evans v. City of Newark

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Sep 12, 2025

DISCUSSION Qualified immunity shields government officials, including law enforcement, from liability unless their conduct violates a clearly established right. 15 When assessing qualified immunity, our inquiry is … Existing caselaw clearly establishes and recognizes that right. 31 But Appellants 27 Wilson, 212 F.3d at 789. 28 Id.

Julius L. Finkelstein v. Louis P. Bergna

924 F.2d 1449 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jan 29, 1991

The district court correctly concluded that Finkelstein alleged a violation of clearly established law and we accordingly affirm the denial of qualified immunity on the liberty interest claim. … II The district court also concluded that Bergna was not entitled to qualified *1453 immunity on the first amendment claim. Because the law was not clearly established in 1982, we reverse.

Hayes v. Long

72 F.3d 70 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Dec 7, 1995

On appeal, Hayes argues defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity, because in February 1992, Muslim inmates had a “clearly established right” in this, circuit not to handle pork. … This court has taken a broad view of what constitutes “clearly established law” for the purposes of a qualified immunity inquiry. Boswell v.

Richard Scott v. John Baldwin

720 F.3d 1034 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Aug 6, 2013

Qualified immunity shields public officials from § 1983 damage actions if “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Pearson v. … Because Baldwin’s conduct was not clearly “unlawful in the situation he confronted,” he is entitled to qualified immunity. See Grayson v. Ross, 454 F.3d 802, 810 (8th Cir. 2006).

Kathleen Whalen v. John McMullen

907 F.3d 1139 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Oct 30, 2018

“Qualified immunity is no immunity at all if ‘clearly established’ law  WHALEN V. … The right Whalen asserts was not clearly established, and McMullen is entitled to qualified immunity from this suit. 26 WHALEN V. MCMULLEN III.