Case law

Lee v. Mihalich

847 F.2d 66 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · May 17, 1988

In furtherance of these policies, the discriminant for qualified immunity focuses on the objective legal reasonableness of an official's acts under law which has been clearly established at the time he acts. … the violation of clear law needed to supply the malice element of the constitutional tort. 11 A government official will be denied qualified immunity for having violated a clearly established right when "in the light of

Simmons v. Poe

47 F.3d 1370 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Mar 1, 1995

to qualified immunity. … Immunity may thus be established either on the basis that the right allegedly (or actually) violated was not at the time one “clearly established,” or that, though “clearly established” (and violated), it was one that a “

Doctor Awanna Leslie v. Hancock County Board of Education

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jul 12, 2013

had was not clearly established. … “[T]o obtain qualified immunity, an official must first establish that he acted within his discretionary authority.”

James McKinney v. Richland County Sheriff's Department Roy Livingston, Richland County Sheriff Department Sheriff of Richland County

431 F.3d 415 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Dec 12, 2005

Livingston moved for summary judgment below on grounds of qualified immunity, but that motion was denied. … Livingston moved for summary judgment, claiming that he was entitled to qualified immunity.

John Allen Caldwell v. Woodford County Chief Jailer, James Moore, Harry Stephen Tracy Rick Adkins Daniel E. Clark W. Keith Broughton

968 F.2d 595 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 1, 1992

The question whether an official is protected by qualified immunity turns on “the objective legal reasonableness” of the action, assessed in light of the legal rules that were “clearly established” at the time the action … In Russo , we granted qualified immunity to the officers and noted that the use of a taser in order to avoid a dangerous situation or the resort to even greater force did not violate clearly established law.

Whalen v. Massachusetts Trial Court

397 F.3d 19 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Feb 4, 2005

Moreover, the individual defendants claimed the shield of qualified immunity, arguing that Whalen did not have a clearly established constitutional right to a hearing before a budget-driven termination of his position' — … The “Clearly Established Right” and “Reasonableness” It is beyond debate that, as a general matter, the constitutional right to due process claimed by Whalen was clearly established at the time he was laid off.

Willis v. Neal

247 F. App'x 738 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Sep 7, 2007

Willis also bears the burden of establishing that the defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity. Smoak v. Hall, 460 F.3d 768, 778 (6th Cir.2006). … This court has previously held, as did the district court, that Tennessee law provides qualified or good faith immunity of government employees for state law torts. Rogers v.

Mendoza v. United States Immigration & Customs Enforcement

849 F.3d 408 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Feb 21, 2017

Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, government officials are generally immune from civil liability so long as "their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … To determine whether a government official is entitled to qualified immunity, we must ask (1) whether the official's action violated a constitutional right; and (2) whether the violated right was clearly established.

Jim Maxwell v. County of San Diego

697 F.3d 941 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Sep 13, 2012

Qualified immunity protects government officers “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known … To determine whether an officer is entitled to qualified immunity, we ask, in the order we choose, (1) whether the alleged misconduct violated a right and (2) whether the right was clearly established at the time of the alleged

Schroeder v. McDonald

41 F.3d 1272 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Nov 29, 1994

The qualified immunity test requires a two-part analysis: “(1) Was the law governing the official’s conduct clearly established? (2) Under that law, could a reasonable officer have believed the conduct was lawful?” … Thus, defendants acted in complete disregard for clearly established prison regulations. Accordingly, defendants fail the second part of the qualified immunity test.

Pam Pino v. E.P. Higgs, Curt Faust, Marcella Wolf, Jim Naranjo, Harlan Weiss, Pablo Hernandez

75 F.3d 1461 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Feb 5, 1996

Qualified immunity shields public officials from § 1983 liability if their actions did not “violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. … In other words, a party attempting to avoid summary judgment based on qualified immunity “is obliged to present facts which if true would constitute a violation of clearly established law.”

Benefield v. C.O. McDowall

241 F.3d 1267 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Mar 5, 2001

upon which relief can be granted and on qualified immunity grounds. … A denial of qualified immunity that accepts the plaintiff’s version of the facts and concludes that given those facts, the defendant violated clearly established law is immediately appealable because it presents for appellate

Schuler v. City of Boulder

189 F.3d 1304 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Sep 7, 1999

Quiller and Kotowski filed the instant appeal challenging the district court’s order which denied their qualified immunity defense and held that their actions taken against Schuler violated clearly established constitutional … Spurlock, 798 F.2d 1313, 1318 (10th Cir. 1986), and held that in June 1992, the law was clearly established so as to defeat a qualified immunity defense there.

Estate of Decedent Lolomania Soakai v. Abdelaziz

137 F.4th 969 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · May 16, 2025

Because the law was clearly established before the date of the car chase that defendants’ conduct was unconstitutional, defendants were not entitled to qualified immunity. … While creative, this doesn’t prove clearly established law. We should have granted qualified immunity to the Officers on this new substantive due process claim.

May v. Franklin County Board of Commissioners

59 F. App'x 786 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Mar 12, 2003

that he had qualified immunity. … Pelletier, 516 U.S. 299, 307 , 116 S.Ct. 834 , 133 L.Ed.2d 773 (1996) (“Mitchell clearly establishes that an order rejecting the defense of qualified immunity at either the dismissal stage or the summary-judgment stage is

Velez-Diaz v. Vega-Irizarry

421 F.3d 71 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Sep 2, 2005

We will, therefore, address this issue in our qualified immunity analysis. … Finally, we must determine "whether a 'reasonable officer, similarly situated, would understand that the challenged conduct violated' the clearly established right at issue." Id.

Fogel v. Collins

531 F.3d 824 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jun 27, 2008

Police officers performing discretionary functions within the scope of their employment have qualified immunity from civil suit as long as “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights … A two-step analysis guides our qualified immunity inquiry.

Fisher v. Moore

62 F.4th 912 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Mar 16, 2023

The school officials sought dismissal on qualified-immunity grounds, arguing that the state-created danger doctrine was not clearly established in this circuit when the underlying events occurred. … “The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable

Maresca v. County of Bernalillo

804 F.3d 1301 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Oct 22, 2015

On cross- motions for summary judgment, the district court held that the officers were entitled to qualified immunity because they had not violated clearly established Fourth Amendment standards. … Because the reasonableness inquiry overlaps with the qualified immunity 21  analysis, a qualified immunity defense is of less value when raised in defense of

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