Case law

Williams v. Denver

99 F.3d 1009 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Mar 3, 1997

The employee is entitled to qualified immunity either if the law was not clearly established or if his conduct did not violate the law. … immunity because the law was not clearly established.

McCullough v. Wyandanch Union Free School District

187 F.3d 272 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jul 30, 1999

Qualified Immunity Pecorale argues that he is entitled to qualified immunity on appellee’s First Amendment claim because Constitutional protection of appellee’s speech, in these circumstances, was not clearly established … Where there is a “total absence of evidence of retaliation,” there is no basis on which to conclude that the defendant seeking qualified immunity violated clearly established law. Gubitosi v.

Jason Findlay v. Jon Lendermon

722 F.3d 895 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jun 14, 2013

Because Findlay has not carried his burden of showing the violation of a clearly established right, Lendermon is entitled to qualified immunity. I. Background A. … But qualified immunity requires the plaintiff to produce a case “clearly establish[ing] [the right] in a particularized sense, rather than in an abstract or general sense.” Abbott v.

Shontay Humphries v. Milwaukee Coun

702 F.3d 1003 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Dec 26, 2012

The Supreme Court held in Pearson that a court may grant qualified immunity on the ground that a purported right was not “clearly established” by prior case law without first resolving whether the purported right exists. … As the plaintiff, Humphries has the burden of defeating the qualified immunity defense that the defen- dants raised, so she must show that the due process right she asserts was clearly established by prior case law.

Dawn Hanson v. Chris LeVan

967 F.3d 584 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jul 21, 2020

Ultimately, dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) is appropriate based on qualified immunity only when the plaintiffs’ well‐ pleaded allegations, taken as true, do not “state a claim of vi‐ olation of clearly established law.” … that the plaintiffs stated a claim for a violation of a clearly established right, barring qualified immunity at this point in the litigation.

Philip W.L. Lum v. Raymond Jensen, Robert Drake, and the State of California

876 F.2d 1385 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · May 31, 1989

They asserted the defense of qualified immunity on the ground that they had violated no clearly established constitutional right. … They contend that because there was no clearly established right, they were entitled to qualified immunity as a matter of law. 1 DISCUSSION I.

Henry v. Purnell

501 F.3d 374 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Sep 20, 2007

PURNELL 3 Qualified immunity shields government officials performing dis- cretionary functions "from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established … Because an official "who performs an act clearly established to be beyond the scope of his discre- tionary authority is not entitled to claim qualified immunity," the defen- dant bears the initial burden "of demonstrating

Migneault v. Peck

158 F.3d 1131 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Oct 23, 1998

Henney’s actions violated clearly established law. The district court rejected Dr. Henney’s argument, ruling she was not entitled to qualified immunity. In doing so, the court found Ms. … The doctrine of qualified immunity shields government officials from suit when their conduct does not “‘violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’”

Luethje v. Kyle

131 F.4th 1179 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Mar 19, 2025

Thus, “‘[g]eneral statements of the law’ can clearly establish a right for qualified immunity purposes if they apply ‘with obvious clarity to the specific conduct in question.’” Halley v. … Luethje’s constitutional rights and the violation was clearly established, they are not entitled to qualified immunity as to the unlawful search claim. C.

Shockency v. Ramsey County

493 F.3d 941 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jul 12, 2007

Qualified immunity protects state officials from civil liability for actions that “do not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Sexton v. … We conclude that the law on these issues was clearly established, and the district court did not err in concluding that Fletcher was not entitled to qualified immunity. III.

Tawana Henderson v. City of Woodbury

909 F.3d 933 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Nov 28, 2018

“When a defendant asserts qualified immunity at the summary judgment stage, the plaintiff must produce evidence sufficient to create a genuine issue of fact regarding whether the defendant violated a clearly established right … Qualified immunity is inappropriate if “the facts shown by the plaintiff make out a violation of a constitutional or statutory right, and . . . that right was clearly established at the time of the defendant’s alleged misconduct

Brandie Cunningham v. Wood County

983 F.3d 185 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Dec 18, 2020

Citing factual disputes, and holding that Cunningham’s right to a name-clearing hearing was clearly established, the district court denied qualified immunity on summary judgment. … Qualified immunity’s clearly established prong was met, the district court reasoned, because Wisconsin v. Constantineau, 400 U.S. 433 (1971), and Bledsoe v.

Mark Shane Bishop v. Deputy Dale Glazier

723 F.3d 957 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jul 30, 2013

was clearly established. … Glazier is thus entitled to qualified immunity, because he did not violate Bishop’s then clearly established constitutional rights under the Fourth Amendment. See LaCross, 713 F.3d at 1158.

Juarez v. Aguilar

666 F.3d 325 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Sep 30, 2011

Appellants sought dismissal based on qualified immunity. … As long as the officials received fair notice that their conduct violated the litigant’s rights, the right was clearly established. See id.

Roger D. Young v. Grady B. Lynch Sgt. Benthall H.R. Daughtry Officer Newell G.T. Cousins John Doe, Correctional Officer, (Two Cases)

846 F.2d 960 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · May 20, 1988

The interlocutory appeal to resolve the question of qualified immunity conclusively determines whether the official’s conduct violated clearly established law and therefore whether the official must defend against a claim … They contend that at the time of Young’s disciplinary hearing, it was not clearly established that an inmate had the right to demand production of real evidence at a disciplinary hearing.

Maria Morales v. Sonya Fry

873 F.3d 817 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Oct 16, 2017

Dissent by Judge Bea OPINION McKEOWN, Circuit Judge: The primary issue in this appeal is whether the “clearly established” prong of the qualified immunity analysis should b,e submitted to a jury, Following the lead of nearly … The chief issue in this appeal is whether the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis, whether the constitutional right was “clearly established,” should have been submitted to the jury. 2 We hold that the “clearly

Swanson v. Town of Mountain View, Colo.

577 F.3d 1196 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Aug 19, 2009

immunity because the stops did not amount to Fourth Amendment violations—or at least not violations of clearly established Fourth Amendment principles. … Analysis Qualified immunity protects “government officials performing discretionary functions” and shields them from “liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory

Hampton v. Oktibbeha County Sheriff Dept.

480 F.3d 358 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Feb 26, 2007

If the plaintiff fails to state a constitutional claim or if the defendant's conduct was objectively reasonable under clearly established law, then the government official is entitled to qualified immunity. … The officers instead argue that their actions were objectively reasonable in light of clearly established law at the time of the events. 16 The district court declined to grant qualified immunity to any of the officers on

Thompson v. Williams

320 F. App'x 678 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Mar 26, 2009

The district court also properly concluded that the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity because it was not clearly-established at the time of the violation that the defendants were required to provide him with either … Katz, 533 U.S. 194 , 200-01, 121 S.Ct. 2151 , 150 L.Ed.2d 272 (2001) (“Where the defendant seeks qualified immunity, a ruling on that issue should be made early in the proceedings so that the costs and expenses of trial are

Morrow v. Meachum

917 F.3d 870 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Mar 8, 2019

And qualified immunity applied in all five. Cases cutting both ways do not clearly establish the law. 3. … Some courts have suggested dicta can clearly establish the law for purposes of qualified immunity.