Case law

Randi Hyatt v. Callahan County

843 F.3d 172 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Nov 18, 2016

“Qualified immunity protects officers from suit unless their conduct violates a clearly established constitutional right.” Mace v. City of Palestine, 333 F.3d 621, 623 (5th Cir. 2003). … “A plaintiff seeking to overcome qualified immunity must show: ‘(1) that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct.’”

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

Brandy Hamilton v. Nathaniel Turner

845 F.3d 659 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jan 12, 2017

Kindred moved for summary judgment, arguing that he was entitled to qualified immunity because at the time of the incident, bystander liability was not clearly established in the Fifth Circuit in cases not involving excessive … DISCUSSION We have jurisdiction to review a district court’s denial of qualified immunity “only to the extent that the appeal concerns the purely legal question whether the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity

Debbie Floyd v. Larry Laws, and City of Sherwood, a Municipal Corporation

929 F.2d 1390 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Apr 30, 1991

Because these rights are clearly established, Floyd contends, defendant Laws was not entitled to a jury instruction on qualified immunity. … If Floyd’s line of reasoning were correct, then any plaintiff could preclude her opponent’s qualified immunity defense simply by alleging violations of clearly established constitutional rights.

Vann v. City of Southaven, Mississippi

876 F.3d 133 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Nov 22, 2017

“A qualified immunity defense alters the usual summary judgment burden of proof. … “The . dispositive question is ‘whether the violative nature of particular conduct is clearly established.’ ” Mullenix v.

Horwitz v. State Board of Medical Examiners of State of Colorado

822 F.2d 1508 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jul 7, 1987

or qualified immunity. … Horwitz's license and refused to reinstate it until May 1, 1984, they did not violate a clearly established constitutional right of due process. Dr.

Fairchild v. Coryell Cty

40 F.4th 359 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jul 14, 2022

IV The jailers, however, can assert qualified immunity. They are liable for unlawful conduct only if their actions violated “clearly established” constitutional rights. Pearson v. … Timpa, 20 F.4th at 1028–29 (explaining that qualified immunity may provide a defense at the early stages of an encounter but not later stages when the continued use of force violates clearly established law); Aguirre

Iacobucci v. Town of Pembroke

193 F.3d 14 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Oct 4, 1999

"Hence, state officials exercising discretionary authority are entitled to qualified immunity insofar as their conduct does not transgress clearly established constitutional or federal statutory rights of which a reasonably … Hence, Boulter was not entitled to qualified immunity. III.

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

Amy Sanders v. Lamar Jones

845 F.3d 721 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jan 9, 2017

Jones is entitled to qualified immunity because Sanders cannot establish the violation of a constitutional right. … immunity grounds); see generally Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 563 U.S. 731, 735 (2011) (holding that a defendant is entitled to qualified immunity unless the plaintiff establishes the violation of a clearly established constitutional

Anderson v. Larson

327 F.3d 762 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Apr 30, 2003

IV 20 Qualified immunity shields government officials from federal suit unless their conduct violates a clearly established constitutional or statutory right of which a reasonable person would have known. Harlow v. … The inquiry "focuses on the objective legal reasonableness of the official's acts," and the qualified immunity defense fails if the official violates a clearly established right because "a reasonably competent public official

Stephen Hanes v. Thomas Zurick

Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Aug 18, 2009

the court indicated that the right was clearly established. … was not clearly established at the time of the alleged conduct.

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.

Mara v. Rilling

921 F.3d 48 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Apr 9, 2019

But  even  if  the  answer  is  yes,  or  not  definitively  no,  a  defendant  may  still  be  entitled  to  qualified  immunity  if  the  right  was  not  clearly  established  at  the  time  of  his  challenged actions … The district court still needed to address the second qualified  immunity  inquiry,  i.e.,  whether  the  rights  at  issue  were  clearly  established  in  the  context  presented,  such  that  every  reasonable  officer

Jeffers v. Gomez

240 F.3d 845 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Feb 20, 2001

Determining whether a public official is entitled to qualified immunity “requires a two-part inquiry: (1) Was the law governing the state official’s conduct clearly established? … The district court correctly determined that the first prong of the qualified immunity inquiry—whether the law governing Appellants’ conduct was clearly established—had been met.

Nathan Rinne v. Camden County

65 F.4th 378 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Apr 13, 2023

Hasty moved to dismiss on the basis of qualified immunity. … A public official enjoys qualified immunity from suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 unless a plaintiff shows that the official’s alleged conduct violated one of the plaintiff’s clearly established constitutional rights.

Williams v. Kaufman County

352 F.3d 994 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Sep 8, 2003

Qualified Immunity Standard To prevail in a § 1983 suit, a plaintiff must overcome an officer’s defense of qualified immunity. Last term, in Hope v. … Whether the law was “clearly established” Although we hold today that the prolonged detention of plaintiffs was unlawful, we nonetheless agree with the district court that qualified immunity shields

Porter v. Ascension Parish School Board

393 F.3d 608 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Dec 10, 2004

challenged state action was unconstitutional.”13 Even if we find that the right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation, however, a defendant will still be entitled to qualified immunity if … Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 640 (1987); Barrow, 332 F.3d at 846 (second question in qualified immunity analysis is whether the “constitutional right was clearly established when the violation supposedly occured”). 13

Scott Kampas v. City of St. Louis, Missouri

Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Oct 31, 2025

It found the officers were entitled to qualified immunity regarding the Plaintiffs’ unlawful seizure claim as it was not clearly established that the Plaintiffs’ arrests violated the Fourth Amendment. … An officer does not violate an “individual’s ‘clearly established’ rights for qualified immunity purposes if he nevertheless had arguable probable cause to make the arrest.” Brown, 40 F.4th at 901 (citation omitted).

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.