Case law

Jantz v. Muci

976 F.2d 623 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Dec 14, 1992

Therefore, the court analyzed Plaintiff's qualified immunity defense under a rational basis test, holding that it was clearly established in 1988 that the government could not " 'discriminate [against homosexuals] for the … Applying this precept as clearly established by one fellow district court, 1 the court held that Defendant was not entitled to the qualified immunity defense because he did not offer a rational explanation for basing his

Mosher Ex Rel. Estate of Mosher v. Nelson

589 F.3d 488 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Dec 17, 2009

was 'clearly established' at the time of the defendant’s alleged violation." … Therefore, Dennehy is entitled to qualified immunity. B.

Hemphill v. Hale

677 F.3d 799 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · May 10, 2012

The court later denied the motion, finding that Hale was not entitled to qualified immunity. … We review de novo the court’s determination that Hale is not entitled to qualified immunity, and we must decide whether the facts, construed in the light most favorable to Hemphill, established a constitutional violation,

Ford v. Moore

237 F.3d 156 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jan 8, 2001

Qualified Immunity A defendant official is entitled to. qualified immunity if (1) the defendant’s actions did not violate clearly established law, or (2) it was objectively reasonable for the defendant to believe that his … actions were objectively unreasonable in light of clearly established law.

Miller v. Clinton County

544 F.3d 542 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Oct 1, 2008

The court concluded that Judge Saxton had not established that he was entitled to qualified immunity because the record did not support his claim that he had not violated Miller’s clearly established constitutional rights … Discussion The doctrine of 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

Asociación De Periodistas De Puerto Rico v. Mueller

529 F.3d 52 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Jun 18, 2008

Qualified Immunity In their motion for summary judgment, the defendants seek to avoid liability by invoking the protection of qualified immunity. … See Saucier, 533 U.S. at 201 ("If no constitutional right would have been violated were the allegations established, there is no necessity for further inquiries concerning qualified immunity.").

Vincson Herren and Woody Eugene Herren v. E.J. Bowyer, Individually and in His Official Capacity as Sheriff of Lee County, Georgia

850 F.2d 1543 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 3, 1988

Public officials performing discretionary functions 5 enjoy qualified immunity from civil damages liability “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … a grant of summary judgment based upon qualified immunity.” 841 F.2d at 1565 ; accord Webb v.

John Lanigan, Sr. v. Village of East Hazel Crest, Illinois, Officer Robert Wasek, Chief Ray Robertson

110 F.3d 467 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Mar 28, 1997

Finally, the district court found that all three individual defendants were shielded from liability by qualified immunity because their conduct was not unreasonable in light of clearly established law. … Cournia set forth the test for qualified immunity as follows: First, the plaintiff must show that the law was clearly established when the challenged conduct occurred.

Madonna Sterling, of the Estate of Marcus Anthony Wayman v. Borough of Minersville F. Scott Wilinsky, Police Officer Thomas Hoban, Police Officer Joseph Wilinsky, Police Chief, Individually and as Police Officers for the Borough of Minersville Officer F. Scott Wilinsky and Officer Thomas Hoban

232 F.3d 190 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Nov 14, 2000

The court further ruled that the officers were not entitled to qualified immunity since their conduct violated Wayman's clearly established right to privacy as protected by the Constitution. 7 Officers Hoban and Wilinsky … II. 8 We have previously set forth the analytical framework for deciding qualified immunity claims. First, we must determine if the plaintiff has alleged a deprivation of a clearly established constitutional right.

Castillo v. City of Weslaco

388 F.3d 464 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · May 13, 2004

Finding that the Officers sufficiently alleged a violation of clearly established federal law, the district court denied the Appellants’ motion for summary judgment asserting qualified immunity and scheduled the case for … II Qualified immunity is appropriate if “the defendant’s actions were ‘objectively reasonable’ with reference to ‘clearly established law’ at the time of the conduct in question.” Petta v.

Donna Lowe v. Town of Fairland, Oklahoma Beverly Hill Don Jones Shirley Mangold and Loretta Vinyard

143 F.3d 1378 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · May 14, 1998

Consequently, when the qualified immunity defense is raised, the defendant should be spared the burden of proceeding with the litigation until the plaintiff establishes that the defendant’s alleged actions violated clearly … established law.

Washington v. Starke

855 F.2d 346 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 26, 1988

or not qualified immunity exists. … clearly established law.’

Bradway v. Gonzales

26 F.3d 313 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jun 10, 1994

The doctrine of qualified immunity shields public officials performing discretionary functions from civil liability “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … As noted above, the Supreme Court had not clearly established inadvertence as a necessary element of a lawful plain view seizure.

Asociación De Subscripción Conjunta Del Seguro De Responsabilidad Obligatorio v. Flores Galarza

484 F.3d 1 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Mar 1, 2007

Second Prong: Constitutional Right was “Clearly Established” at Time of Violation “The second question [of the qualified immunity analysis] deals with fair warning; it asks whether the law was clearly established at the time … The qualified immunity inquiry recognizes that “[i]t is not always evident at the time an official takes an action that a clearly established right is involved.

Marquez v. Gutierrez

322 F.3d 689 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Mar 6, 2003

The qualified immunity inquiry has two parts: "(1) Was the law governing the state official's conduct clearly established? (2) Under that law could a reasonable state official have believed his conduct was lawful?" … Further, Marquez argues that a prison official cannot act maliciously and sadistically while, at the same time, reasonably believing that his actions conform to clearly established law.

Edwards v. Gilbert

867 F.2d 1271 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Feb 28, 1989

Once a defendant advances a defense of qualified immunity, he is entitled to summary judgment unless “the legal norms allegedly violated by the defendant were clearly established at the time of the challenged actions_” Mitchell … established” for purposes of qualified immunity at the time of Molbert’s death.

Dennis R. Cookish v. Commissioner Ronald Powell

945 F.2d 441 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Sep 26, 1991

“Qualified immunity operates to shield government officials exercising discretionary powers ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights … A “clearly established” right in the qualified immunity context has a *443 particularized cast. Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 640 , 107 S.Ct. 3034, 3039 , 97 L.Ed.2d 523 (1987).

Matthew Locke v. County of Hubbard

Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Sep 17, 2025

While I disagree with the court’s constitutional analysis, I need not resolve that inquiry as the case can be easily resolved under the clearly established prong of the qualified immunity analysis. See Pearson v. … This does not constitute a violation of a clearly established right; therefore, the officers are entitled to qualified immunity.

Machelle Pearson v. MDOC

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Mar 26, 2026

It also held that they could seek damages because the complaint alleged a violation of clearly established law to overcome any qualified-immunity defense. See id. at *5–6. … The Inmates also contend that they may rely on the clearly established “right to safe and sanitary conditions” to overcome qualified immunity. Appellees’ Br. 27.

Torres v. Runyon

80 F. App'x 594 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Nov 6, 2003

If the official violated a constitutional right, he or she nonetheless may be entitled to qualified immunity if the right was not clearly established such that a reasonable official “would understand that what he is doing … The next prong of the qualified immunity analysis is “ ‘a two-part inquiry: (1) Was the law governing the state official’s conduct clearly established?