Case law

Pratt Ex Rel. Estate of Pratt v. Harris County

822 F.3d 174 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · May 3, 2016

“The doctrine of qualified immunity shields officials from civil liability so long as their conduct ‘does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’ … “In order to overcome a qualified immunity defense, a plaintiff must allege a violation of a constitutional right, and then must show that ‘the right was clearly established ... in light of the specific context of the case

Dominguez v. Correctional Medical Services

555 F.3d 543 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Feb 17, 2009

“Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, ‘government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability from civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly' established statutory … Clearly Established Right “For a right to be clearly established, ‘[t]he contours of the right must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what [she] is doing violates that right.’ ” Feathers

Aversa v. United States

Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Oct 21, 1996

And a federal official is qualifiedly immune from suit for an alleged constitutional tort if his "conduct [did] not violate clearly established . . . constitutional rights of which a -3- 3 reasonable person would have known … Qualified immunity, however, must be decided according to the law in effect at the time of the alleged violation -- "implicit in the Harlow formulation . . . is a temporal dimension: the ______ right must have been clearly

Yvette Felarca v. Robert Birgeneau

891 F.3d 809 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · May 31, 2018

Nonetheless, he believed that the officers were entitled to qualified immunity because the law at the time they acted did not clearly establish the illegality of their conduct. … Nonetheless, the officers are entitled to qualified immunity because the law at the time they acted did not clearly establish the illegality of their conduct.

Wilbur Barnes v. Tony Wright

449 F.3d 709 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 2, 2006

Qualified Immunity “[T]he Supreme Court [has] held that ‘government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established … Second, we consider whether the violation involved a clearly established constitutional right of which a reasonable person would have known.

Easterling v. Pollard

528 F. App'x 653 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jul 22, 2013

The individual defendants are protected by the defense of qualified immunity: The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly … The general principles of First Amendment law we have discussed were clearly established in 2010, but the qualified immunity defense turns on whether the application of those principles to the circumstances faced by the defen

Irving v. Dormire

519 F.3d 441 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Mar 7, 2008

A state official is protected from suit by qualified immunity so long as the official’s “conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … Defendants are properly denied qualified immunity only if the constitutional right violated was clearly established at the time of the offense. Reece, 60 F.3d at 491 .

Latetia Nunley v. Blayne Newton

117 F.4th 1059 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Sep 25, 2024

at issue was clearly established at the time of defendant’s alleged misconduct.” … “[T]o determine whether [Newton] violated clearly established law, we need to know what happened.

Nevarez v. Dorris

135 F.4th 269 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Apr 18, 2025

Thus, no law clearly established the Fourth Amendment violation alleged by Plaintiffs at the time the warrants were sought, so the Troopers are entitled to qualified immunity. … Qualified Immunity The majority concludes that Julie is unable to show a clearly established right under the second prong of qualified immunity.

John Young v. Mercer County Commission

849 F.3d 728 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Feb 27, 2017

“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 … “[C]ourts may grant qualified immunity on the ground that a purported right was not ‘clearly established’ by prior case law, without resolving the often more difficult question whether the purported right exists at all.”

Akers v. Caperton

998 F.2d 220 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Jun 29, 1993

(“[A] core issue in resolving the immunity defense is whether state officials violated clearly established legal norms_ Thus, the availability of qualified immunity overlaps substantially the question on the merits of the … Because the defendants’ actions did not violate “clearly established” law at the time of the transfers — and did, in fact, comply with this Circuit’s established law— the district court’s qualified immunity ruling must be

Rogers v. Gooding

84 F. App'x 473 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Nov 24, 2003

Qualified Immunity for the Excessive Force Charges Qualified immunity is an affirmative defense that shields government officials “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established … not violate any clearly established principles.

Pena v. Deprisco

432 F.3d 98 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Dec 9, 2005

Qualified Immunity: Was the Constitutional Right Clearly Established? … Although it is a close question, we think that the substantive due process violation that the plaintiffs allege here was not clearly established for purposes of qualified immunity.

Clyde Weiler v. James Purkett Leah Embly

137 F.3d 1047 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Mar 2, 1998

DISCUSSION Qualified immunity shields government actors from suit when, “a reasonable officer could have believed [the challenged act] to be lawful, in light of clearly established law and the information the [defendants … Contours of the Right as “Clearly Established” Normally, a determination that the plaintiff has failed to allege a violation of a constitutional right ends the qualified immunity inquiry. See, e.g., Thomas v.

Olufemi Anthony Lukan v. North Forest Isd, Gloria S. Scott, L v. Brisco

183 F.3d 342 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Sep 27, 1999

First, if the official’s conduct did not violate a clearly established constitutional right, the official is entitled to qualified immunity. See Jones v. Collins, 132 F.3d 1048, 1052 (5th Cir.1998). … Second, even if the official’s conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right, the official is nonetheless entitled to qualified immunity if his conduct was objectively reasonable. See id.

Lory Lombardo v. John F. Harvey, Sandy Jenkin, Cathy Smolkovich

865 F.2d 259 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Dec 12, 1988

of the clearly established law and information he possessed). 9 Procedurally, this Circuit has placed the burden on the plaintiff once the issue of qualified immunity is raised: 10 Where a defendant official is entitled … to qualified immunity, the plaintiff must plead facts which, if true, describe a violation of a clearly established statutory or constitutional right of which a reasonable public official, under an objective standard would

Clement v. Gomez

298 F.3d 898 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Aug 6, 2002

"If the law did not put the [officials] on notice that [their] conduct would be clearly unlawful, summary judgment based on qualified immunity is appropriate." Saucier, 533 U.S. at 202, 121 S.Ct. 2151 . I. … Clearly Established Law 23 The qualified immunity analysis requires us to further consider whether the rights of the prisoners in this case were clearly established at the time of incident.

Barkes Ex Rel. Barkes v. First Correctional Medical, Inc.

766 F.3d 307 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Sep 5, 2014

See id. at 678 (“In the context of determining whether there is a violation of clearly established law to overcome qualified immunity, purpose rather than knowledge is required to impose Bivens liability on the subordinate … “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.”

Michael Durham v. David Horner

690 F.3d 183 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Aug 8, 2012

Hence, our qualified immunity defense involves a “two-step” inquiry, asking “first whether a constitutional violation occurred and second whether the right violated was clearly established.” Id. … Having concluded that Durham has no "viable § 1983 claim, we need not determine whether any rights [he] asserted were 'clearly established' for purposes of qualified immunity.” See Lambert v.

Rebecca Judge v. City of Lowell

160 F.3d 67 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Nov 18, 1998

The Court specifically reserved judgment on the question whether its “qualified immunity jurisprudence would require a heightened pleading in eases involving individual government officials.” Id. … “This option exists,” the Court went on to state, “even if the official chooses not to plead the affirmative defense of qualified immunity.”