Case law

John Montin v. Y. Moore

846 F.3d 289 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jan 19, 2017

A state official is immune from liability unless he or she “violated a clearly established constitutional or statutory right of which a reasonable official would have known.” Carpenter v. … When determining whether a public official is entitled to qualified immunity, we examine (1) whether the official violated the plaintiff’s constitutional or statutory right, and (2) whether that right was clearly established

Schmelz v. Monroe County

954 F.2d 1540 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Feb 19, 1992

Good faith qualified immunity is a doctrine that protects government employees from suit for actions that “ ‘legitimately require action in which clearly established rights are not implicated’ ” and the public interest would … Once qualified immunity is asserted by the defendants, the plaintiff must show that the law was clearly established that the defendants’ acts rose to the level of “deliberate indifference.” Edwards, 867 F.2d at 1275 .

Howard v. Kansas City Police Department

570 F.3d 984 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jul 2, 2009

“Qualified immunity protects a government official from lia *988 bility in a section 1983 action unless the official’s conduct violated a clearly established constitutional- or statutory right of which a reasonable person … was clearly established at the time of the deprivation.

Don Waldrop v. David C. Evans, Frank Fodor, M.D., T.G. Smith, M.D.

871 F.2d 1030 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Apr 28, 1989

The court then concluded that be *1034 cause a prisoner’s right to psychiatric care was clearly established under the Eighth Amendment, appellants could not rely on the defense of qualified immunity. Id. at 846-47 . … violation of clearly established law.

Daryl L. Davis v. Calzona Hall, Ex-Director, St. Louis County Department of Justice Services, in His Individual Capacity Dora B. Schriro, Director, Missouri Department of Corrections, in Her Individual Capacity Robert A. Meechum, Lieutenant Jacqueline D. Young St. Louis County Brian Goeke Larry Wilson Susan Martin Stacy Breedon John Prier Travis Clyburn, Barbara Knell Rebecca Atterberry, Pat Roll, Daryl L. Davis v. Calzona Hall, Ex-Director, St. Louis County Department of Justice Services, in His Individual Capacity Dora B. Schriro, Director, Missouri Department of Corrections, in Her Individual Capacity Robert A. Meechum, Lieutenant Jacqueline D. Young St. Louis County Brian Goeke Larry Wilson, Susan Martin Stacy Breedon John Prier Travis Clyburn, Barbara Knell Rebecca Atterberry Pat Roll, Daryl L. Davis v. Calzona Hall, Ex-Director, St. Louis County Department of Justice Services, in His Individual Capacity Dora B. Schriro, Director, Missouri Department of Corrections, in Her Individual Capacity Robert A. Meechum, Lieutenant Jacqueline D. Young St. Louis County Brian Goeke Larry Wilson, Susan Martin Stacy Breedon John Prier Travis Clyburn Barbara Knell Rebecca Atterberry Pat Roll

375 F.3d 703 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Sep 21, 2004

alleged deprivation of a recognized constitutional right, that this right was clearly established, and that outstanding questions of fact preclude summary judgment on the ground of qualified immunity as to state defendants … Clearly Established 59 The second question that we must ask in our qualified immunity analysis is whether the constitutional right alleged to have been violated was clearly established.

Marcus Evans v. Lorenetta Smith

Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Aug 22, 2025

And second, was the right clearly established at the time? If either answer is no, then qualified immunity applies.” Id. (cleaned up). … Under this Court’s precedent on the clearly established prong, officers are entitled to qualified immunity unless “the violative nature of [the] particular conduct is clearly established.” See Kelsay v.

Byrd v. Cornelius

52 F.4th 265 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Oct 31, 2022

III Cornelius and Sweetin argue that we should reverse the district court and grant them qualified immunity. … Clearly Established Right Next, we address, taking the facts in the light most favorable to Byrd, whether the officers violated clearly established law when they allegedly used excessive force to arrest a

Leonel Buenrostro v. Pablo Collazo, A/K/A Pablo Collazo Marrero

973 F.2d 39 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Aug 26, 1992

Hence, state officials exercising discretionary authority are entitled to qualified immunity insofar as their conduct does not transgress clearly established constitutional or federal statutory rights of which a reasonably … The next step is to ascertain whether the right at issue was “clearly established” at the time of infringement. See Anderson, 483 U.S. at 640 , 107 S.Ct. at 3039 .

Mark Cook v. Roberta Sheldon and Nelson Saldana, New York State Troopers

41 F.3d 73 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Dec 2, 1994

We conclude that the Troopers have not yet earned qualified immunity as a matter of law because, under the facts alleged by Cook, the Troopers may be held to have violated Cook’s clearly established rights. … To evaluate the Troopers’ right to qualified immunity, we must again examine whether the malicious prosecution claim alleges a violation of Cook’s clearly established federal rights.

Shaw v. Villanueva

918 F.3d 414 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Mar 11, 2019

III Villanueva and Ebrom argue that since the court granted Phillips and Morin qualified immunity, they should be immune too. … , Shaw has not appealed Phillips' qualified immunity.

Kathleen Meehan v. Officer Scott Thompson

763 F.3d 936 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Aug 14, 2014

Qualified immunity shields government officials from civil liability insofar as their conduct in performing discretionary functions “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … Meehan asserts that Thompson is not entitled to qualified immunity because he violated her clearly established Fourth Amendment rights in two ways: first by arresting her without a reasonable belief that she was intoxicated

Swint v. City of Wadley

51 F.3d 988 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · May 9, 1995

Qualified Immunity Law The district court denied the three individual defendants’ motions for summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds. The denial of qualified immunity is a question of law to be reviewed de novo. … Because such a due process right was not clearly established at the time of the raids in this case, Sheriff Morgan, Chief Morgan and Officer Dendinger are entitled to qualified immunity on the due process claims.

Kelsey v. County of Schoharie

567 F.3d 54 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · May 22, 2009

As a result, it would be premature to determine whether Defendants Bates and Hazzard are responsible for violating clearly established constitutional law or are immune from suit under the qualified immunity doctrine. … Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, “government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory

Samuel Campbell v. City of Springboro, Ohio

700 F.3d 779 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Nov 29, 2012

Qualified immunity “shields government officials performing discretionary functions from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … Clearly Established Right For a right to be “clearly established,” “[t]he contours of that right must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that right.”

Brenda Davis v. Michelle L. Munger

11 F.4th 604 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Aug 24, 2021

A public official is entitled to qualified immunity unless: (1) their conduct violated a constitutional right, and (2) that right was clearly established. Williams v. … Qualified immunity is “appropriate where no reasonable fact finder could conclude that the facts when viewed in a light most favorable to the plaintiff show that the officers’ conduct violated a clearly established constitutional

LAURO LINES s.r.l. v. Chasser

490 U.S. 495 · Supreme Court of the United States · May 22, 1989

And claims of qualified immunity may be pursued by immediate appeal, because qualified immunity too “is an immunity from suit.” Id., at 526 (emphasis in original). … S., at 524 , and held that the immunity from service of process defendant asserted did not amount to an immunity from suit — even though service was essential to the trial court’s jurisdiction over the defendant.

Hopkins v. Bonvicino

573 F.3d 752 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jul 16, 2009

If the right is not clearly established, then the officer is entitled to qualified immunity. … Because it was also clearly established that the officers’ conduct did not fall within the emergency exception, the two defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity on that basis either.

Syble McDaniel v. Thomas B. Woodard, Iv, Individually and in His Official Capacity as District Judge of Pickens County, Alabama

886 F.2d 311 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Oct 18, 1989

When a defendant advances a defense of qualified immunity, the “plaintiff bears the burden of showing that ‘the legal norms allegedly violated by the defendant were clearly established at the time of the challenged actions … Even assuming that talking with the district attorney about a suspected crime is a clearly established constitutional right — and McDaniel cites no case clearly establishing such a right in this circuit — no *315 clearly

Ajala v. Tom

658 F. App'x 805 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jul 22, 2016

shown that their conduct violated clearly established law in 2007. … On appeal Ajala argues that the district court erred in granting qualified immunity to the Defendants because, he says, it was clearly established by 2007 that using restraints to inflict prolonged, unnecessary pain on a

Miguel A. Figueroa-Rodriguez v. Jorge L. Aquino, Etc.

863 F.2d 1037 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Dec 9, 1988

See DeAbadia, 792 F.2d at 1193 (“the very fact that there is a reasonable dispute means that, from the standpoint of qualified immunity, the law was not clearly established in plaintiff’s favor”). … Given this focus, Aquino was entitled to qualified immunity because it was not clearly established in January 1985 that political affiliation was not an appropriate requirement for the effective performance of the job of