Case law

Thomas Louden v. City of Minneapolis, Minnesota Brenda Perry, Individually and as an Employee of the City of Minneapolis

233 F.3d 1109 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Nov 28, 2000

Counsel has not cited any case in support of this theory, and the appellees argue that Perry is protected by qualified immunity because the law was not clearly established as to when immediate access to medical equipment … Qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions from liability if “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would

Bollinger v. Oregon State Board of Parole & Post-Prison Supervision

86 F. App'x 259 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Dec 22, 2003

We review de novo both a district court’s decision on qualified immunity, and its determination of whether a plaintiffs rights were clearly established at the time of the alleged violation. Elder v. … We proceed to whether Bollinger’s rights were clearly established because the Board has conceded for purposes of its motion to dismiss that Bollinger has alleged a violation of his constitutional rights. See Saucier v.

Moore v. County of Delaware

348 F. App'x 595 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jul 27, 2009

The District Court then determined that it was “clearly established” that Sines’s consent would not be valid under such circumstances, and concluded that the Deputies were accordingly not entitled to qualified immunity. … It then went on to hold that although Sines lacked the authority to consent to the Deputies’ entry of Moore’s study, this law “was not clearly established,” and, as such, the Deputies were entitled to qualified immunity.

Carolyn Comstock v. Norris McCrary v. S. Thyagarajan and David Howell

273 F.3d 693 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Dec 12, 2001

of this appeal, “ ‘show[ ] a violation of clearly established law,’ not on ‘which facts the parties may be able to prove,’ the district court’s denial of qualified immunity is a ‘final order’ under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and … Qualified Immunity In civil suits for money damages, government officials acting in their official capacity are entitled to qualified immunity for discretionary acts which do not violate clearly established law of which a

Barton v. Clancy

632 F.3d 9 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Jan 14, 2011

However, the court concluded that Barton was entitled to qualified immunity because none of the allegedly retaliatory acts violated clearly established law. … established. 16 Because the court was deciding a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, neither a qualified immunity defense nor its "clearly established law" component was at issue

Workman v. Jordan

32 F.3d 475 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Oct 11, 1994

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY 13 Qualified immunity protects public officials from individual liability in a Sec. 1983 action unless the officials violated "clearly established ... constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … a clearly established federal right.

Clubside, Inc. v. Valentin

468 F.3d 144 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Oct 25, 2006

that issues of fact remained with respect to the defense of qualified immunity. … before deciding whether the right was clearly established.”

Shero v. City of Grove, Okl.

510 F.3d 1196 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Dec 17, 2007

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 … that his or her actions were unconstitutional that he or she should not be imputed with knowledge of a clearly established right.

Wilbert Glover v. Matt Bostrom

31 F.4th 601 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Apr 12, 2022

The district court 1 granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment based on qualified immunity. … 2) whether the right was clearly established at the time.

Ricci v. Key Bancshares of Maine, Inc.

768 F.2d 456 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Jul 24, 1985

Under Harlow , qualified immunity is available only where the official’s conduct does not violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” 457 U.S. at 818 . … We must hold, however, that, based upon our review of nationwide precedent, such a cause of action is not clearly enough established to warrant finding that the FBI agents have lost their qualified immunity.

Earnise Pam v. City of Evansville

Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Sep 26, 2025

The Qualified Immunity Test Qualified immunity protects government officials from lawsuits unless the plaintiff can show (1) the official violated his constitutional or statutory rights, and (2) the right was clearly established … Application of the Clearly Established Prong We turn to the application of clearly established law.

Estate of Daniel Hernandez v. City of Los Angeles

96 F.4th 1209 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Mar 21, 2024

CITY OF LOS ANGELES qualified immunity because McBride did not violate clearly established law. … Because McBride did not violate clearly established law in firing her third volley of shots, we conclude that she is entitled to qualified immunity.

Canter v. County of Otsego

14 F. App'x 518 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 12, 2001

As the magistrate judge pointed out in his discussion of qualified immunity, the State Police defendants expressly admitted that the constitutional rights they are accused of violating were clearly established at the time … immunity[,] typically, the issue of whether the federal right allegedly infringed was clearly established.

Warren E. Buzek v. The County of Saunders, State of Nebraska Ron G. Poskochil, Individually and in His Official Capacity

972 F.2d 992 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Aug 17, 1992

Public officials are entitled to qualified immunity when their “conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. … Therefore, when Pickering’s fact-intensive balancing test is at issue, the asserted First Amendment right “can rarely be considered ‘clearly established’ for purposes of the Harlow qualified immunity standard.”

Ronald E. Stevens, Individually and as Guardian of the Person and Estate of Bradley Edwin Stevens, a Disabled Person v. Richard Umsted

131 F.3d 697 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Dec 16, 1997

However, we also found that even though the state caseworker owed a duty to protect the1 child, the caseworker was entitled to qualified immunity because the duty was not clearly established at the time of the events. … “To determine whether a defendant is entitled to qualified immunity, however, we must determine whether he violated a clearly established constitutional right at the time he took his action.” Hill v.

Collier v. Montgomery

569 F.3d 214 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · May 20, 2009

The remaining defendants moved for summary judgment based on qualified immunity. … on the basis of qualified immunity in a § 1983 suit de novo.2 In Saucier v.

Rebirth Christian Academy Daycare, Inc. v. Brizzi

835 F.3d 742 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Aug 30, 2016

We  conclude  that,  based  on  the  allegations  in  the  complaint,  the  defend‐ ants  were  not  entitled  to  qualified  immunity  because  they  violated  clearly  established  law:  the  complaint  adequately  alleges …  to qualified immunity. 

Short v. West

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

established law. … established law.

Simpson v. Hines

903 F.2d 400 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jun 19, 1990

Qualified Immunity. 8 The doctrine of qualified immunity shields a police officer from liability for civil damages when a reasonable officer could have believed that the challenged conduct did not violate clearly established … The appealable issue is a legal one: whether the challenged conduct supports a claim of violation of a clearly established legal norm. Mitchell.

Paul Knox v. Deborah Smith

342 F.3d 651 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Sep 22, 2003

Further the district court concluded that Smith was not entitled to qualified immunity because it was clearly established that to request a warrant based on evidence known to be false or recklessly inaccurate would violate … Qualified Immunity The qualified immunity defense is designed to protect government agents “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights