Case law

Kennedy v. Lehman

328 F. App'x 16 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · May 6, 2009

A grant of qualified immunity allows public officials to be “shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … Be *20 cause the Individual Defendants did not violate a First Amendment right clearly-established as of 2002, we conclude that they are entitled to qualified immunity, and the district court must be reversed.

Stephen G. Loftus v. Ester Clark-Moore

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 13, 2012

The district court ruled that Clark-Moore and Ferguson were entitled to qualified immunity because neither social worker had violated a clearly established federal right of Loftus or his children. … Ferguson is entitled to qualified immunity because the threats that she allegedly made did not violate any clearly established federal right.

Cindy Abbott v. Sangamon County

705 F.3d 706 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jan 29, 2013

Governmental actors performing discretionary func- tions are entitled to qualified immunity from suits for damages “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … immunity on Travis’s excessive-force claim because he did not violate clearly established law.

Justice v. Danberg

342 F. App'x 837 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Aug 17, 2009

The court disagreed, noting that qualified immunity required a two-step analysis: first, whether there was a constitutional violation, and second, whether the constitutional right that was violated was clearly established … qualified immunity.

Ronald Fosnight v. Robert Jones

41 F.4th 916 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jul 27, 2022

Qualified im- munity protects government officials from damages liability unless they “violate clearly established statutory or constitu- 3 We note for completeness that the Supreme Court has never authorized a Bivens action … The district court may entertain a qualified-immunity defense on a defendant’s motion to dismiss.

Wilkerson v. Stalder

329 F.3d 431 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · May 14, 2003

The court must engage in a two-step analysis to determine whether an official is entitled to qualified immunity. … First, the court must determine whether the plaintiff’s allegations make out a violation of a clearly established constitutional right.

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.”

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.

Thomas Leonard v. Stephen Robinson, in His Individual Capacity

477 F.3d 347 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Feb 2, 2007

Robinson has asserted the defense of qualified immunity. … “Qualified immunity is an affirmative defense that shields government officials ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a

Berryman v. Niceta

Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jul 8, 2025

Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, “government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … those rights were clearly established at the time.”

David Ayers v. City of Cleveland

773 F.3d 161 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Dec 2, 2014

In the qualified-immunity context, an example of a purely legal issue is the determination of “what law was clearly established” at the time of the officials’ conduct. Ortiz, 131 S. Ct. at 891 (quoting Johnson v. … The Sykes court found dispositive the fact that the Rule 50(a) motion never mentioned “qualified immunity” or other terms associated with that defense (e.g., “clearly established law” or “objectively unreasonable actions”

Pam Good v. Barbara Olk-Long

71 F.3d 314 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Dec 8, 1995

We need only to pass upon the question of qualified immunity. … It is well settled that qualified immunity shields government officials from liability for money damages if their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable official

Benavidez v. Howard

931 F.3d 1225 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Aug 2, 2019

In this motion, Howard asked the state court to prohibit Plaintiffs and others “from engaging in conduct directed at 5 Under the second prong of qualified immunity, Plaintiffs must show that the right was “clearly … Al–Kidd, 563 U.S. 731, 744 (2011) (“Because [the defendant] did not violate clearly established law, we need not address the more difficult question whether he enjoys absolute immunity.”)

Young v. Martin

51 F. App'x 509 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Oct 21, 2002

a violation of clearly established law.” … Qualified Immunity Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, “government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly

Knisley v. Pike County Joint Vocational School District

604 F.3d 977 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · May 14, 2010

The defendants may still be entitled to qualified immunity if their actions did *982 not “violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. … Our Circuit’s clearly established ease law on this issue put the school and its employees on notice that this search was unconstitutional, so defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity protection.

Hickman v. Laskodi

45 F. App'x 451 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 30, 2002

Laskodi contends that the doctrine of qualified immunity shields him from liability on Hickman’s claim. We review the district court’s denial of qualified immunity de novo. Blake v. … Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, government officials performing discretionary functions will not incur liability for civil damages “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional

Al-Ra'id v. Ingle

69 F.3d 28 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Nov 6, 1995

In assessing qualified immunity, we engage in a two-step analysis. First, we determine whether a plaintiff has alleged the violation of a clearly established constitutional right under the current state of the law. … Moreover, the defendants’ actions were not violative of clearly established law.

Cannon v. City & County of Denver

998 F.2d 867 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jul 12, 1993

Order of Dismissal at 8. ’ The court found that the officers did not act in violation of clearly established law. It therefore concluded that the officers were entitled to qualified immunity. … established rights as to be entitled to a qualified immunity defense.

Tinney v. Shores

77 F.3d 378 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Mar 8, 1996

summary judgment based on qualified immunity. … Qualified immunity protects government actors in their individual capacities from civil damage claims, provided that their conduct does not violate clearly established constitutional rights.

Albert Flenner and William Glover v. Michael F. Sheahan

107 F.3d 459 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Feb 12, 1997

The district court granted his motion, holding that Sheriff Sheahan was entitled to qualified immunity because the law concerning patronage dismissal of corree 1 tional officers was not clearly established in 1993, the time … “The defense 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