Case law

Chilicky v. Schweiker

796 F.2d 1131 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Aug 12, 1986

With qualified immunity, federal officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate “clearly established” statutory or constitutional … determine whether the law is clearly established.

Henry Sampson v. John T. King, Secretary of Louisiana Department of Corrections, and Ross Maggio, Jr., Warden, Louisiana State Penitentiary

693 F.2d 566 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Dec 14, 1982

In their answer, the Secretary and the Warden specifically pled qualified immunity from liability for money damages. … The record clearly establishes that the officials were immune from liability for money damages in this case. We therefore reverse and dismiss Sampson’s damage claim against the prison officials.

Short v. West

662 F.3d 320 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Nov 2, 2011

established law. … established law.

Technical Ordnance, Inc. v. United States

244 F.3d 641 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Mar 26, 2001

To defeat a government official's claim of qualified immunity, a plaintiff must demonstrate that the official's actions violated a statutory or constitutional right, that the right was clearly established at the time of the … established constitutional right and that as a matter of law he is entitled to qualified immunity.

Jensen v. Lane County

222 F.3d 570 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Aug 23, 2000

Robbins violated a clearly established constitutional or statutory right of which a reasonable person would have known. See Harlow, 457 U.S. at 818 , 102 S.Ct. 2727 . … Robbins’ determination that probable cause existed to sign the certificate was reasonable under the circumstances and he did not violate clearly established law.”

April Sabbe v. Washington Cnty Bd of Comm'rs

84 F.4th 807 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Oct 17, 2023

“Qualified immunity attaches when an official’s conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” White v. … I would hold that Defendants’ entry onto Sabbe’s property was a clearly established violation of the Fourth Amendment, as to which Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity.

Daryl L. Davis v. Barbara Knell

375 F.3d 703 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jul 14, 2004

“in light of the legal rules that were ‘clearly established’ at the time [the actions were] taken.” … Clearly Established The second question that we must ask in our qualified immunity analysis is whether the constitutional right alleged to have been violated was clearly established. Saucier, 533 U.S. at 201.

Alan McSurely v. John L. McClellan Thomas Ratliff, Individually and as Sometime Commonwealth Attorney for Pike County, Kentucky

697 F.2d 309 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Dec 10, 1982

Qualified Immunity Ratliff’s investigative and administrative activities are entitled to qualified immunity from suit. As we noted earlier, Harlow makes the test for qualified immunity an objective one. … If the law was clearly established, the immunity defense ordinarily should fail, since a reasonably competent public official should know the law governing his conduct.

Good v. Dauphin County Social Services for Children & Youth

891 F.2d 1087 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Dec 15, 1989

a violation of a clearly established legal right. … action is a violation) violates a clearly established right.

Tuttle v. Gallegos

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jun 29, 2026

A The qualified-immunity doctrine shields public officials from suit for damages under § 1983 unless their conduct violates a clearly established constitutional right. Mace v. … of clearly established law.”

Ben Collins v. John Nagle

892 F.2d 489 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Dec 22, 1989

Likewise, we find that the totality of facts and circumstances provided Nagle, Martin, Riddle and Brown with sufficient collective knowledge to establish probable cause to believe that M. … Dismissal was proper because it is established beyond a doubt that the appellants cannot prove any set of facts consistent with the allegations that would entitle them to relief. Conley v.

Surie Alexander v. Dau Nguyen

78 F.4th 1140 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Aug 25, 2023

Nguyen was entitled to qualified immunity because it was not clearly established that his actions violated the Constitution. II. … Analysis A government official is entitled to qualified immunity “unless the plaintiff raises a genuine issue of fact showing (1) ‘a violation of a constitutional right,’ and (2) that the right was ‘clearly established

96 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 627, 96 Daily Journal D.A.R. 982 Brenda Lynne Carnell v. Cheryl Grimm, Chris Sueo, Yamaguchi, Susan Dowsett, Jerry Yoshit Kujiuji, Officer R. Noguchi, Officer P. Thorton, Officer C.K. Flynn, City and County of Honolulu, Officer Earl Penaroza, and John Does 1-10

74 F.3d 977 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jan 30, 1996

When a law enforcement officer asserts qualified immunity from liability, "the district court must determine whether, in light of clearly established principles governing the conduct in question, the officer objectively could … V. 12 The second step of analysis for a qualified immunity determination is whether under the clearly established law a reasonable officer could have believed that his conduct was lawful. Act Up!

Moran v. Greco

Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Apr 12, 2024

In denying summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds, the district court concluded that “[i]t is clearly established that officers may not gratuitously inflict pain in a manner that is not a reasonable response to … Katz, 533 U.S. 194, 201 (2001), the doctrine of qualified immunity protects a government official from liability unless he or she (1) “violated a constitutional [or federal statutory] right” that (2) “was clearly established

Carol George v. Jarrett Morris

724 F.3d 1191 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jul 30, 2013

Concluding that the deputies had not argued for its application, the court did not address the second prong of qualified immunity — the clearly established inquiry. … Our decision on the clearly established issue does not prevent the deputies from appropriately raising the second prong of qualified immunity at a subsequent stage in the litigation, such as in a Rule 50 motion for judgment

Consonery v. Pelzer

558 F. App'x 271 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Mar 7, 2014

Qualified immunity shields officials from suit if their conduct “d[id] not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. … This standard was clearly established in 2009, when Consonery was incarcerated at WCCF.

Winfield v. Bass

67 F.3d 529 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Oct 25, 1995

Addressing the qualified immunity defense, the court opined that the constitutional right concededly implicated by Winfield’s factual assertions in his complaint and responsive affidavit was “clearly established” at the time … Here, as indicated, the district court expressly ruled in its memorandum opinion that the right allegedly violated was “clearly established” at the critical time.

Wilkins v. Jakeway

44 F. App'x 724 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 15, 2002

Qualified immunity protects from liability for civil damages those officials whose conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … To avoid the bar of qualified immunity a plaintiff must show that his claimed right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation such that a reasonable officer would have understood that his conduct violated

Danahy v. Buscaglia

134 F.3d 1185 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jan 27, 1998

Biddle, 177 F.2d 579, 581 (2d Cir.1949). 34 The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials from liability for civil damages if the challenged action "does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … concluded the jury might find, the immunity defense is established as a matter of law because those facts show ... that it was objectively reasonable for him to believe that his action did not violate clearly established

Turning Point USA at Arkansas v. Ron Rhodes

973 F.3d 868 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Aug 31, 2020

The district court also rejected Hoggard’s § 1983 due-process and First-Amendment damages claims, finding that the defendants were entitled to qualified immunity because they had not violated a clearly established right.4 … “Qualified immunity shields public officials from liability for civil damages if their conduct did not ‘violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’”