Case law

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.

Kemp v. Liebel

877 F.3d 346 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Dec 11, 2017

The Relevant “Clearly Established Law” Inquiry To defeat Liebel’s qualified immunity defense, the burden is on plaintiffs to demonstrate that the- alleged violation, of their Free Exercise Clause right was “clearly established … Liebel Did Not Violate Clearly Established Law Under this framework, it is clear that Liebel is protected by qualified immunity.

Katie Joseph v. John Doe

981 F.3d 319 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Nov 20, 2020

But, to overcome qualified immunity, the plaintiff’s version of those disputed facts must also constitute a violation of clearly established law. … I also agree with the majority that an absence of clearly established law entitles the “bystander officers” to qualified immunity.

Burge v. Pearl River County, Mississippi

103 F. App'x 823 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jul 15, 2004

Government officials performing discretionary functions are protected from civil liability under the doctrine of qualified immunity if their conduct violates no “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … established” for qualified-immunity purposes.

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.

Santamorena v. Georgia Military College

147 F.3d 1337 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jul 31, 1998

But still Plaintiff argues that the preexisting law was somehow so clearly established that Defendants should not be protected by qualified immunity. … established for purposes of qualified immunity.

Jordan v. Doe

38 F.3d 1559 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Dec 2, 1994

Fitzgerald and its Progeny The Supreme Court established the test for qualified immunity in Harlow v. … clearly established constitutional law”’ under Harlow.

Rebecca Warner and Pamela Ann Laxton v. Grand County, Ron Richmond, James B. Nyland and Robin A. Parker

57 F.3d 962 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jun 13, 1995

Officer Richmond Government officials performing discretionary functions enjoy qualified immunity from civil damage suits if their conduct did *964 not violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … We have held that “in order for the law to be clearly established, there must be a Supreme Court or Tenth Circuit decision on point, or the clearly established weight of authority from other courts must have found the law

Foulks v. Cole County

991 F.2d 454 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Apr 14, 1993

immunity. … Thus, we review Foulks’ claim under the clearly established constitutional standard set forth in Estelle .

Cox v. Glanz

800 F.3d 1231 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Sep 8, 2015

Cox has failed to satisfy her burden on the clearly- established-law prong of the qualified-immunity standard. … Cox cannot satisfy the clearly-established-law component of the qualified-immunity standard. We must accordingly reverse the district court’s denial of qualified immunity to the Sheriff on Ms.

Patricia Littrell, Appellant/cross-Appellee v. Daniel Jake Franklin, in His Official and Individual Capacities, Appellee/cross-Appellant

388 F.3d 578 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Nov 2, 2004

The second step of the qualified immunity analysis requires courts “to ask whether the right was clearly established.” *583 Id. … Specific findings on these questions of fact would have enabled the district court to address the legal issue of qualified immunity through reference to excessive force standards that are clearly established.

Brandon Backe v. Steven LeBlanc

691 F.3d 645 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Aug 16, 2012

A district court’s denial of qualified immunity to public officials is exactly such an order. … Consequently, this court has established a careful procedure under which a district court may defer its qualified immunity ruling if further factual development is necessary to ascertain the availability of that defense.

Jerry Young A/K/A Ramadan v. Donald Selsky, P. Orengo, R. Althouse, R.J. Cunningham, D. Schaller, L. Jewett

41 F.3d 47 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Nov 21, 1994

A government official has qualified immunity from liability for damages based on his official acts as long as those acts violate no clearly established statutory or constitutional right. Weg v. … The defendant must establish that he had an objectively reasonable belief that his act violated no clearly established rights. Id. Since the district court did not consider this issue, we remand so that it may do so.

H.A.L. Ex Rel. Lewis v. Foltz

551 F.3d 1227 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Dec 15, 2008

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s denial of Defendants’ motion to dismiss based on qualified immunity. … Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s denial of Defendants’ motion to dismiss based on qualified immunity.6 AFFIRMED. 6 We do not hint about the availability of qualified immunity on summary

V-1 Oil Co. v. Smith

114 F.3d 854 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · May 29, 1997

Qualified immunity is immunity from suit, not a defense. As such, the justifications for the doctrine of qualified immunity demand that we exercise jurisdiction over Smith’s appeal. See Chateaubriand v. … The law was not clearly established when Smith acted. Qualified immunity insulates Smith from civil liability for his actions. *858 IV We reverse the district court’s denial of summary judgment.

Francis v. Fiacco

942 F.3d 126 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Nov 12, 2019

But the court held that the Earley principle had become clearly established “[b]y 2009, and absolutely no later than 2010,” preventing the State Defendants from claiming qualified immunity “for their later conduct.” … Instead, the Court held that qualified immunity protected the State Defendants because the answer to that question had not been clearly established. Id. at 174–77.

Zackery Beck v. Hamblen Cty., Tenn.

969 F.3d 592 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 10, 2020

A Qualified immunity shields a government official from money damages (and litigation) unless the official’s conduct violated a “clearly established” legal rule. Pearson, 555 U.S. at 232. … So Kingsley’s effect on Beck’s deliberate-indifference claim (if any) cannot qualify as “clearly established” law under the qualified-immunity test. See Wilson v. Layne, 526 U.S. 603, 618 (1999).

Jeffrey Clark v. Louisville-Jefferson Cnty. Metro Gov't

130 F.4th 571 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Mar 7, 2025

And because the Supreme Court had clearly established Hardin’s Brady rights before 1992, the district court found that Thurman could not invoke qualified immunity for this constitutional violation. … Qualified immunity bars courts from imposing monetary liability on officers under § 1983 unless their conduct violated “clearly established” law. District of Columbia v.

Alston v. Read

663 F.3d 1094 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Dec 14, 2011

[2] When evaluating a denial of summary judgment on the issue of qualified immunity, our review is limited to the “purely legal issue whether the facts alleged . . . support a claim of clearly established law.” … The qualified immunity inquiry is two-pronged. We must ask whether “the officer’s conduct violated a constitutional right” and whether “the right was clearly established” at the time of the alleged misconduct.

Kelly v. Borough of Carlisle

622 F.3d 248 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Oct 4, 2010

The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … The ACLU takes issue with the District Court’s decision to skip the “violation prong” of the qualified immunity inquiry and proceed directly to the “clearly established” prong.