Case law

Lisa Demaree v. John Krause

880 F.3d 1066 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jan 23, 2018

“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 person … established We move to the second step of the qualified immunity inquiry—whether the relevant judicial precedents at the time of the incident clearly gave notice that what happened here violated the Demaree family’s Fourth

United Artists Theatre Circuit, Inc. v. The Township Of Warrington, Pa

316 F.3d 392 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jan 14, 2003

Qualified immunity applies so long as the officials' "conduct [did] not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known." Id. … In determining whether qualified immunity applies, we ask: (1) whether the plaintiff has alleged the deprivation of an actual constitutional right, and if so, (2) whether the right was clearly established at the time of the

Blair v. Meade

76 F.3d 97 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Feb 16, 1996

Meade has qualified immunity. … The qualified immunity analysis requires consideration of whether a right exists at all, i.e., whether plaintiff has asserted violation of a right, and whether that right was clearly established. • The motivation question

Alva Gutierrez v. Municipal Court of the Southeast Judicial District, County of Los Angeles, Incorrectly Sued as "County of Los Angeles, a Public Entity Porter De Dubovay John W. Bunnett and Russell F. Schooling, in Their Capacity as Officials Having Authority to Issue Personnel Rules for Employees of the County of Los Angeles at the Municipal Court of the Southeast Judicial District," Alva Gutierrez v. Porter De Dubovay John W. Bunnett and Russell F. Schooling, Defendants

838 F.2d 1031 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Apr 22, 1988

Clearly Established in General 47 In Harlow v. … Qualified immunity is not a defense in such cases.

Michael-Ryan Kruger v. State of Nebraska

820 F.3d 295 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Apr 7, 2016

sued under § 1983 is entitled to qualified immunity unless it is shown that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right that was “clearly established” at the time of the challenged conduct.... … Kruger’s proclaimed duty is not clearly established. There are two exceptions, neither of which applies here.

Joseph Carl Brown v. Joseph Ponte

842 F.2d 16 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Mar 14, 1988

As a result, the qualified immunity defense is available to appellants. … If the law at the time of appellants’ actions was not “clearly established,” they could not have “known” that their conduct was forbidden. Id.

Mowbray v. Cameron County, TX

274 F.3d 269 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Dec 6, 2001

, when based on an issue of (2) was clearly established at the time of the law.” … She under the same test federal courts employ for has not shown Gavito violated any constitu- qualified immunity determinations under tional right, much less one clearly established

Workman v. Jordan

32 F.3d 475 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Aug 16, 1994

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY Qualified immunity protects public officials from individual liability in a § 1983 action unless the officials violated “clearly *479 established ... constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would … Once a defendant to a § 1983 action raises a qualified immunity defense, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to show both facts and law to establish that the defendant is not entitled to a qualified immunity. Dixon v.

Cierra Dunn v. John Does

Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Sep 5, 2024

Unless he had arguable probable cause to seize the phones, he violated the plaintiffs’ clearly established right to be free from unreasonable seizures of their property and is not entitled to qualified immunity. … Smith based on qualified immunity.

Trey Sims v. Kenneth Labowitz

877 F.3d 171 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Dec 5, 2017

The doctrine of qualified immunity shields government officials from liability for civil damages when their conduct does not violate clearly established constitutional or other rights that a reasonable officer would have … clearly established at the time of the alleged violation.

Mason v. Lafayette City-Parish Consolidated Government

806 F.3d 268 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Nov 10, 2015

immunity. 10 “[Qualified immunity shields government officials acting within their discretionary authority from liability when their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional law of which a … We therefore must determine whether Faul is entitled to qualified immunity on the grounds that he did not violate clearly established law.

Huron Valley Hospital, Inc. v. City Of Pontiac

792 F.2d 563 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · May 30, 1986

This is not a simple conclusion that the law is clearly established as is necessary with qualified immunity. … Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 , 102 S.Ct. 2727 , 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982), test for applying qualified immunity requires a finding that the official conduct "does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights

Parks v. Pomeroy

387 F.3d 949 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Dec 20, 2004

plaintiff can establish a constitutional violation, he is entitled to qualified immunity. … This "clearly established" standard must be met in order to permit the denial of qualified immunity. For these inquiries, we conduct a de novo review. See, e.g., Tuggle v.

Rosenbaum v. Washoe County

654 F.3d 1001 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Aug 22, 2011

so, whether that right was clearly established at the time of the event. … Ct. at 2083 (holding that an official is not entitled to qualified immunity where “every reasonable official” would have understood that he was violating a clearly established right (emphasis added) (internal quotation marks

Moreno v. Baca

431 F.3d 633 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Dec 9, 2005

The court denied the deputies' motion for summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds, holding that Moreno's constitutional right to be free from suspicionless searches was "clearly established" at the time of the detention … Both contentions are untenable. 29 Appellants' first argument in favor of qualified immunity — that it was not clearly established that Moreno had any right to be free from suspicionless searches because of his parole status

S.R. Nehad v. Neal Browder

929 F.3d 1125 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jul 11, 2019

Qualified Immunity A government official’s entitlement to qualified immunity depends on “(1) whether there has been a violation of a constitutional right; and (2) whether that right was clearly established at the time … Browder is therefore not entitled to qualified immunity under the clearly established prong. D.

Al-Turki v. Robinson

Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Aug 12, 2014

-2- motion for qualified immunity. … Defendant contends that even if her alleged actions violated Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment rights, she is entitled to qualified immunity because the law was not clearly established at the time of her alleged violation.

Stanley Joseph v. Kenneth Allen

712 F.3d 1222 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Apr 15, 2013

Qualified immunity shields law enforcement officers from suit if they “[did] not violate [a] clearly established statutory or constitutional right[] of which a reasonable person would have known.” Gorra v. … However, qualified immunity allows officers to make reasonable errors, Habiger v.

Don Meadows v. Rockford Housing Authority

861 F.3d 672 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jun 30, 2017

Qualified immunity protects state officials from liability for civil damages unless the plaintiff can show “(1) that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was ‘clearly established … A right is clearly established when existing precedent has placed the right’s existence “beyond debate.” Reichle v. Howards, 132 S. Ct. 2088, 2093 (2012).

Terrell v. Allgrunn

114 F.4th 428 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Aug 27, 2024

To defeat qualified immunity, the plaintiff must show that the official’s conduct was objectively unreasonable in light of a clearly established rule of law. … When evaluating whether [Allgrunn] violated clearly es- tablished law for purposes of our qualified immunity analysis, we consider whether the law was clearly established at the time of the defendant