Case law

Rivas v. Freeman

940 F.2d 1491 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Sep 9, 1991

In Harlow, the Supreme Court further stated that if the law regarding an individual's constitutional or statutory rights is clearly established, the qualified immunity defense ordinarily should fail. … Harlow, at 819, 102 S.Ct. at 2738 . 20 The district court denied the deputies' claim to qualified immunity noting that their combined conduct violated Rivas's clearly established constitutional rights.

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 .

Wimbley v. Cashion

588 F.3d 959 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Dec 3, 2009

The court found genuine issues of material fact whether Cashion’s reasons for discharging Wimbley were pretextual, and denied qualified immunity. II. This court reviews de novo a denial of qualified immunity. … Cashion is not entitled to qualified immunity under part one of the Saucier inquiry. B. The second Saucier inquiry is whether the right was clearly established.

Weaver v. Brenner

40 F.3d 527 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Oct 26, 1994

Clearly Established Right The threshold issue in deciding whether a public official is entitled to qualified immunity is, as noted, whether the federal right was clearly established at the time the alleged violation occurred … relevant rights to have been clearly established in 1989 is affirmed.

Harris v. Morales

231 F. App'x 773 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Feb 2, 2007

right and (2) that the right was clearly established at the time of the defendant’s unlawful conduct.” … The district court did not fully consider qualified immunity; it did not address whether the applicable constitutional right was “clearly established” at the time of Captain Gore’s actions.

Headwaters Forest Defense v. County of Humboldt

276 F.3d 1125 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jan 11, 2002

The district court granted summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds in favor of all individual defendants except for Lewis and Philip. … Analysis Under the qualified immunity doctrine, “government officials ... generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights

Bailey v. Iles

78 F.4th 801 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Aug 25, 2023

However, “[a] qualified immunity defense alters the usual summary judgment burden of proof” because the plaintiff, to overcome qualified immunity, “must rebut the defense by establishing a genuine [dispute of material … An officer is entitled to qualified immunity “if there is no violation, or if the conduct did not violate law clearly established at the time.” Id.

Mccloud v. Testa

97 F.3d 1536 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Feb 13, 1997

Finally, as an additional guidepost we note that, as a practical matter, invocation of the Rice canon and the general availability of qualified immunity will move in tandem, because if it is already clearly established that … immunity context, where the key inquiry is whether a principle of law is clearly established, may be perceived as problematic.

Whittington v. Maxwell

455 F. App'x 450 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Dec 22, 2011

Did Maxwell act unreasonably in the light of clearly established law? … We now turn to the second inquiry in the qualified immunity analysis— whether Maxwell acted in an objectively unreasonable manner in the light of clearly established law.

Shase Howse v. Thomas Hodous

953 F.3d 402 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Mar 18, 2020

Qualified immunity shields law enforcement officers from civil liability unless the officers (1) violated a statutory or constitutional right and (2) the unlawfulness of their conduct was clearly established at the time. … As for Middaugh, the majority correctly states that, in order to overcome an assertion of qualified immunity, Howse must show that the officers violated a clearly established constitutional right.

Hinton v. City Of Elwood

997 F.2d 774 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jun 29, 1993

In Medina we determined that the individual defendants were entitled to qualified immunity because the law was not clearly established, 960 F.2d at 1498-99 , and in Watson we remanded for a finding on that issue, 857 F.2d … When a finding of qualified immunity is predicated on the basis that the law is not clearly established, it is indeed correct that "there is nothing anomalous about allowing [a suit against a municipality] to proceed when

Gary Jacobsen v. Michael Klinefelter

992 F.3d 717 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Mar 30, 2021

The court concluded that Klinefelter did not violate a clearly established right of Jacobsen’s under the Fourth Amendment and was therefore entitled to qualified immunity on the excessive force claim. … To overcome a defense of qualified immunity, Jacobsen must show that the evidence would support a finding that Klinefelter violated Jacobsen’s rights under the Fourth Amendment, and that the right was clearly established

Michael Mockeridge v. Harry Harvey

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 11, 2025

We can thus “hear interlocutory appeals considering the legal question of qualified immunity, i.e., whether a given set of facts violates clearly established law.” Moldowan v. … was clearly established at the time.”

Ted P. Campbell v. Ernest Mercer, as Mayor of Elmore City, and as an Individual

926 F.2d 990 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Feb 26, 1991

The central issue in connection with defendant Mercer’s claim of qualified immunity is whether it was clearly established law in 1987 that plaintiff Campbell had a constitutional right to a post-termination hearing. … Also, the law was not clearly established that plaintiff had a constitutional right to a post-termination hearing.

Smith v. Mattox

127 F.3d 1416 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Nov 19, 1997

immunity grounds to the extent the appeal concerns pure issues of law, such as whether the law was clearly established); Cottrell v. … An official sued as an individual is entitled to qualified immunity if his conduct "does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known."6 A reasonable official's

Wayne Powell, as of the Estate of Dana Kimberly Devilla v. Sunny Schriver, Superintendent Thomas A. Coughlin, III C.O. Lynch C.O. Crowley

175 F.3d 107 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Apr 2, 1999

The doctrine of qualified immunity “shields government officials from liability for damages on account of their performance of discretionary official functions ‘insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established … The Eighth Amendment Claim The district court dismissed Devil-la’s Eighth Amendment claim on the ground of qualified immunity, reasoning that “it was not clearly established as of this incident in 1991 that a corrections

Washington Square Post 1212 American Legion v. Maduro

907 F.2d 1288 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jun 28, 1990

a warrantless entry, or closed to non-Post members, in which case it was clearly established that a warrant was necessary. … DISCUSSION Qualified immunity has long shielded government officials performing discretionary functions from civil damages liability “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or con *1291 stitutional

Thad Delaughter v. Ronald Woodall

909 F.3d 130 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Nov 19, 2018

Clearly established law Having established that summary judgment on the first prong was incorrect, we turn to the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis. … Therefore, if the fact issues under prong one were resolved in Delaughter’s favor, Hatten’s conduct would violate clearly established law and he would not be entitled to qualified immunity.

Price-Cornelison v. Brooks

524 F.3d 1103 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · May 2, 2008

The next qualified immunity question presented is whether the equal protection right implicated here was clearly established at the time Brooks refused to enforce Price-Cornelison’s permanent protective order. … Whether this Fourth Amendment right was clearly established.

Barton v. Curtis

497 F.3d 331 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jul 30, 2007

(2) the issue appealed concerned, not which facts the parties might be able to prove, but, rather, whether or not certain given facts showed a violation of ‘clearly established’ law.” … 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 would have known