Case law

Rooni v. Biser

742 F.3d 737 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Feb 4, 2014

“To determine whether a defendant is entitled to qualified immunity, courts must address two issues: (1) whether the defendant violated the plaintiffs constitutional rights and (2) whether the right at issue was clearly established … clearly established.

Aucoin v. Haney

306 F.3d 268 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Oct 1, 2002

to support Haney politically in his campaign for District Attorney; if the law was not clearly established, then the district court erred, and Haney is entitled to qualified immunity and the dismissal of the complaint … Haney therefore is entitled to qualified immunity.

K.W.P. v. Kansas City Public Schools

931 F.3d 813 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Aug 1, 2019

that [their] conduct violated a clearly established right.’” … not satisfy the ‘clearly established’ standard here

Ernesto Nunez v. Luiz Izquierdo-Mora, Etc.

834 F.2d 19 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Nov 30, 1987

not “clearly established.” … Thus, it was not clearly established that this position was protected from political discharge. The judgment of the district court in respect to the issue of qualified immunity is Reversed. 1 .

Cope v. Coleman County

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jun 26, 2024

In order to overcome qualified immunity, a plaintiff must show: (1) the defendant violated the plaintiff’s constitutional rights, and (2) “the right at issue was clearly established at the time of [the] defendant’s alleged … ’s holding of Monroe in a cell containing a phone cord did not violate a clearly established constitutional right.”); id.

Richard Clemons v. John Couch

3 F.4th 897 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 7, 2021

CLEARLY ESTABLISHED RIGHT In the second step of our qualified-immunity analysis, we must determine whether Richard’s constitutional right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation. … Under the clearly established prong of qualified immunity, a constitutional violation must be so clearly established by existing precedent that “every reasonable official would interpret it to establish the particular rule

Doe v. Whelan

732 F.3d 151 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Oct 17, 2013

Such a state official is entitled to qualified immunity from actions under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 “unless the official's conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right.” Pearson v. … Where the law is clearly established, “a caseworker is . . . entitled to qualified immunity if officers of reasonable competence could disagree on the legality of the action at issue in its particular factual context.”

Dill v. City of Edmond

155 F.3d 1193 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Aug 28, 1998

Qualified Immunity Defendants argue that the district court erred in denying Vetter qualified immunity. Our analysis of the qualified immunity defense is two-pronged. … In this case, because Vetter’s qualified immunity was predicated on the basis that the law was not clearly established, qualified immunity does not shield the City of Edmond.

Contreras v. Dona Ana County Board

965 F.3d 1114 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jul 20, 2020

So I join Chief Judge Tymkovich’s opinion as far as it addresses the “clearly established” prong of the qualified immunity analysis. … A court holds, as the Eleventh Circuit did, that the officer is entitled to qualified immunity because his actions did not violate any clearly established rights. See Corbitt v.

Angela Borrell v. Bloomsburg University

870 F.3d 154 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Aug 30, 2017

Ficca is entitled to qualified immunity as long as she does not violate a “clearly established” constitutional or federal right. Sharp, 669 F.3d at 159 (quoting Saucier v. … And the district court cases cited cannot clearly establish law for qualified immunity purposes in any event. See Camreta v. Greene, 563 U.S. 692 , 709 n.7, 131 S.Ct. 2020 , 179 L.Ed.2d 1118 (2011).

Kiser v. Garrett

67 F.3d 1166 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Oct 20, 1995

In September 1993, the child protective services functions of DHS were constitutional rights were not clearly established at the time in issue, the appellees are shielded by qualified immunity. … Louisiana's conclusion that the right to family integrity is not clearly established.

Dijon Sharpe v. Winterville Police Department

59 F.4th 674 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Feb 7, 2023

When the stop occurred, it was not clearly established that the officer’s actions violated the passenger’s First Amendment rights. So qualified immunity bars that claim. I. … Walker, A Qualified Defense of Qualified Immunity, 93 NOTRE DAME L.

Margaret Cowan, Administratrix of the Estate of Victoria Cooper v. Michael Breen, Town of North Branford, Consolidated-Defendant-Appellant

352 F.3d 756 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Dec 18, 2003

If the plaintiff fails to establish a constitutional violation, the qualified immunity inquiry ends and the plaintiff may not recover. Saucier, 533 U.S. at 201, 121 S.Ct. 2151 . … Was the law clearly established? Breen, relying on County of Sacramento v.

Roberto Valderrama v. Officer Carl Rousseau

780 F.3d 1108 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Mar 16, 2015

The district court granted their motions in part, but it denied them qualified immunity as to several of the § 1983 claims. The officers now appeal the denial of qualified immunity as to Mr. … clearly established.

Fields v. Abbott

652 F.3d 886 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Aug 30, 2011

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 … due process right that Fields asserts was clearly established when the events in this case took place.

Argueta v. Jaradi

94 F.4th 475 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Feb 29, 2024

Because of the disputed facts, and the clearly established law preventing officers from using deadly force after incapacitating an individual, the officer was precluded from qualified immunity. Id. at 339. … are material to the application of qualified immunity.

Oscar F. Sanchez Liliana Sanchez v. Charles Swyden, Inspector, Warren K. Hayward, Officer

131 F.3d 1144 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jan 13, 1998

We disagree, go no further than step one of the qualified immunity analysis, and conclude that Sanchez has not shown that the defendants deprived him of a clearly established constitutional right. In Baker v. … CONCLUSION Finding that Sanchez has not shown that he has been deprived of a clearly established constitutional right, we hold that all defendants named in Sanchez’s § 1983 suit are entitled to qualified immunity as a matter

William Wentworth Foster v. Mary Basham

932 F.2d 732 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jul 16, 1991

Basham also contended she was entitled to qualified immunity from suit. … Although subjective motive (or intent) is not relevant to the qualified-immunity analysis, the knowledge possessed by the defendant at the time the challenged action occurred is, along with the clearly established law as

Lamont Shepard v. T. Quillen

840 F.3d 686 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Oct 26, 2016

Whether Shepard’s right was clearly established Wise may nevertheless be entitled to qualified immunity if the right at issue was not “clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct.” … We thus do not fault Shepard for failing to address the “clearly established” prong of the qualified immunity analysis in his opening brief.

Radwan v. Manuel

55 F.4th 101 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Nov 30, 2022

immunity because such a right was not clearly established at the time of the scholarship’s termination. … In short, the district court concluded that the “lack of clearly established law under the Fraser standard” entitled Coach Tsantiris and AD Manuel to qualified immunity on the First Amendment claim. Id. at 111.