Case law

Rafael Navarro v. Sherman Block

250 F.3d 729 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · May 11, 2001

After reviewing the legal standards for qualified immunity, the court held: 9 [T]he law is not clearly established that a policy of indemnifying punitive damage awards violates constitutional rights . . . . … Though much of the analysis under qualified immunity and the merits of a §§ 1983 claim overlaps, the issue of whether a right is "clearly established " is relevant only to qualified immunity. 11 Regardless, the explicit holding

Michael Jones v. City of St. Louis

104 F.4th 1043 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jun 17, 2024

failing to respond to his requests to be released based on the court order deprived Davis of a clearly established liberty interest. 375 F.3d at 719. … qualified immunity claims.

J. J. v. City of San Diego

42 F.4th 990 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Nov 15, 2021

Prong one of this test is therefore not satisfied, and qualified immunity applies on that basis. Prong two, the clearly established prong, confirms this result. … Thus, unless J.K.J. can show that on the date the officers encountered Jenkins, it was clearly established that their conduct was unlawful, qualified immunity applies also under prong two.

Greenwood v. of New York

163 F.3d 119 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Dec 11, 1998

. § 1983 ; it did so on the ground that the officials had qualified immunity. 1 We disagree with the court's conclusion that Greenwood's property right in his clinical staff privileges was not clearly established and that … "Even defendants who violate [clearly established] constitutional rights enjoy a qualified immunity that protects them from liability for damages unless it is further demonstrated that their conduct was unreasonable under

Preschooler II v. Clark County School Board of Trustees

479 F.3d 1175 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Mar 20, 2007

of clearly established law. … Government officials do not enjoy qualified immunity from civil damages if their conduct violates “clearly established constitutional or statutory rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v.

Claude E. Woods v. Larry Smith

60 F.3d 1161 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Aug 15, 1995

whether the plaintiff has asserted the violation of a clearly established constitutional right. … Although the Court recently emphasized that denials of eleventh amendment immunity, like denials of qualified immunity, fall within the limited category of cases that warrant collateral review under Cohen v.

Ricker v. Leapley

25 F.3d 1406 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jun 7, 1994

Qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions if “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … We have concluded that both Leapley and Weber are entitled to qualified immunity because Ricker has failed to allege a violation of a clearly established constitutional right.

Tucker v. Cty Richmond, KY

388 F.3d 216 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Oct 28, 2004

The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials who perform discretionary functions from civil liability “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of … Assuming that “a violation could be made out on a favorable view of the parties’ submissions, the next, sequential step is to ask whether the right was clearly established.

Jeffrey M. Kuha v. City of Minnetonka

328 F.3d 427 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · May 8, 2003

Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, state actors are protected from civil liability when “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have … The qualified immunity inquiry is a two-step process.

Brewster v. Shasta County

27 F. App'x 908 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Dec 28, 2001

in which the determination of qualified immunity depends on disputed issues of material fact.” … “clearly established right” violated by their suggestive conduct in relation to the photo array and live lineup.

Kwai Fun Wong v. United States

373 F.3d 952 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jun 25, 2004

No doubt we do over the qualified immunity issue. … Whether the Law Was Clearly Established 108 Even where a constitutional violation has occurred, whether an official asserting qualified immunity may be held liable "generally turns on the `objective legal reasonableness'

Elba Estrada-Adorno v. Jose R. Gonzalez, Etc.

861 F.2d 304 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Nov 10, 1988

He is immune unless, at the time he took action, the right at issue was clearly established. Anderson v. … Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818-19 , 102 S.Ct. 2727, 2738-39 , 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982) (state official is immune from damages liability unless his action violates a right that was “clearly established” at the time the action

Zulock v. Shures

441 F. App'x 294 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Dec 22, 2010

Qualified immunity recognizes that the public interest is best served when officials can act “with independence and without fear of consequences” so long as their actions do not violate clearly established rights. … The second prong of the Saucier qualified immunity analysis asks whether *303 the constitutional violation in question “involved a clearly established constitutional right of which a reasonable person would have known.”

Pike v. Budd

133 F.4th 74 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Mar 28, 2025

Pike filed a § 1983 action against Budd, which the district court dismissed, finding that Budd was entitled to qualified immunity because case law did not clearly establish that Budd would violate the Equal Protection … Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity protects reasonable government officials from civil liability when their conduct does not violate clearly established constitutional or statutory rights.

Beverly Nettles-Nickerson v. John Free

687 F.3d 288 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 1, 2012

The district court, however, granted the officers’ motion for summary judgment, holding that they were entitled to qualified immunity because Nettles- Nickerson did not have “a clearly established constitutional right to … Qualified immunity is warranted even if a constitutional violation has occurred if the right violated was not clearly established, Estate of Carter v.

Ngo v. Storlie

495 F.3d 597 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jul 26, 2007

actions were objectively reasonable in light of clearly established law. … Here, we must ask whether Ngo’s right to be free from excessive force is clearly established.

Thorpe v. Weaver

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jul 8, 2026

To overcome qualified immunity, plaintiffs must show: “(1) that the [officer] violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct.” … Plaintiffs cannot show that Weaver violated clearly established law. Even if Weaver learned of Boykin’s distress, we still grant her qualified immunity.

Sondra Weisbrod v. Virginia Donigan, Individually and as an Employee of the State of Florida, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services

651 F.2d 334 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jul 20, 1981

Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity if the record establishes they did not act in disregard of clearly established constitutional rights or with a malicious intent to deprive plaintiff of her rights. *336 Wood v … Because we uphold the district court’s finding of qualified immunity, we need not reach defendants’ claim of absolute immunity.

Alan Baynes v. Brandon Cleland

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 24, 2015

Clearly Established Although the district court agreed that Baynes established the first prong of the qualified immunity analysis, it ultimately found that Baynes’ claim could not survive summary judgment because … This right was ‘clearly established’ for qualified immunity purposes at the time of Amanda’s seizure on October 30, 2002.”)

Tenenbaum v. Williams

193 F.3d 581 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Oct 13, 1999

Government officials “enjoy qualified immunity when they perform discretionary functions if either (1) their conduct did not violate clearly established rights of which a reasonable person would have known, or (2) it was … Whatever van Emrik “clearly established” therefore could not have guided the behavior of the individual defendants here and they are entitled to qualified immunity, as the district court held. IV.