Case law

Jamie Cunningham v. Cobb County, Georgia

141 F.4th 1201 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jun 23, 2025

, and, even if they had, Cunningham failed to point to any clearly established law that the Officers vio- lated. … did not violate clearly established law.

Maria Luisa Castro-Aponte v. Maria Ligia-Rubero, Etc.

953 F.2d 1429 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Jan 21, 1992

Government officials generally are shielded from liability for civil damages unless their conduct violates “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … It is the plaintiff’s burden to offer such evidence if she is to overcome the general rule of qualified immunity.

Ramirez v. Webb

835 F.2d 1153 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Mar 17, 1988

Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 , 102 S.Ct. 2727 , 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982), the Supreme Court established that officials are denied qualified immunity only when their alleged acts violate "clearly established statutory or constitutional … Accordingly, defendant INS agents have qualified immunity unless plaintiffs' "rights were so clearly established when the acts were committed that any officer in the defendant's position, measured objectively, would have

Skip Rogers v. Aaron King

885 F.3d 1118 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Mar 23, 2018

Qualified immunity shields government officials from liability in a § 1983 action unless the official's conduct violates a clearly established constitutional or statutory right of which a reasonable person would have known … Officer King is thus "entitled to qualified immunity unless (1) the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, establishes a violation of a constitutional or statutory right, and (2) the right was clearly

Al-Amin v. Smith

511 F.3d 1317 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jan 7, 2008

Al-Amin’s free speech right was not clearly established. … The problem with defendants’ argument is that the “clearly established” inquiry for qualified immunity focuses on the defendant’s conduct and whether given a particular factual situation, a reasonable official would know

Ralph Rogers v. Michael Fair

902 F.2d 140 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Apr 30, 1990

We have jurisdiction to review a district court’s denial of qualified immunity on grounds that a genuine issue of material fact exists as to the factual predicate of a qualified immunity claim. … concerning qualified immunity.

Maness v. District Court of Logan County-Northern Division

495 F.3d 943 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Aug 13, 2007

"Qualified immunity protects state actors from civil liability when their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known." Kahle v. … a deprivation of such a right, whether or not the right was clearly established such that a reasonable person would have realized that his or her actions were unlawful.

Rush v. City of Lansing

644 F. App'x 415 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Feb 29, 2016

B The “clearly established” prong of the qualified immunity test bolsters our conclusion. The’ Supreme Court has “repeatedly told courts ... not to define clearly established law at a high level of generality.” … And, in any event, a constitutional right to be free from such a use of force was not clearly established.

Babb v. Lake City Community College

66 F.3d 270 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Oct 5, 1995

is whether the facts show a violation of "clearly established" law. … "clearly established" law.

Gregory Clark v. Austin Clark

926 F.3d 972 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jun 13, 2019

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 would have known … "[O]fficers are entitled to qualified immunity under § 1983 unless (1) they violated a federal statutory or constitutional right, and (2) the unlawfulness of their conduct was clearly established at the time."

Conlon v. Scaltreto

Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Oct 22, 2025

Clearly Established I now turn to the second component of the qualified-immunity inquiry -- whether the unlawfulness of Chisholm's … In concluding that Sergeant Chisholm was entitled to qualified immunity, the majority decides that Chisholm did not violate clearly established law by attempting to use the less-than-lethal beanbag shotgun in an effort

Miranda-Rivera v. Toledo-Davila

813 F.3d 64 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Feb 12, 2016

Nor is Officer Pérez entitled to qualified immunity on the "clearly established" ground. … Nor are they entitled to qualified immunity based on the "clearly established" prong either because the law on denial of medical care has long been clear in the First Circuit.

Mark Atkinson v. City of Mountain View

709 F.3d 1201 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Feb 8, 2013

Qualified Immunity Having found no objectively unreasonable conduct, the district court did not decide whether Sanders was entitled to qualified immunity. … Our test for qualified immunity has two parts: (1) whether there is sufficient evidence the officer “violated a constitutional right,” and (2) whether the “constitutional right [the officer violated] was so ‘clearly established

Carol Smart v. Christian Simonson, David Edelson and Meryln Niedens

867 F.2d 429 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Mar 9, 1989

The district court granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment, finding that the defendants were entitled to qualified immunity because defendants’ conduct did not violate a clearly established constitutional right. … Because the right to treatment was not clearly established at the time of plaintiff’s confinement, the district court properly granted summary judgment to the defendants on the basis of qualified immunity.

Huff v. Reichert

744 F.3d 999 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Mar 10, 2014

Discussion The doctrine of qualified immunity “protects government officials ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established *1004 statutory or constitutional rights of which … immunity defense,” the facts asserted by the plaintiffs make out a violation of clearly established law.

John v. City of El Monte

515 F.3d 936 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Feb 5, 2008

If no constitutional right would have been violated were the allegations established, there is no necessity for further inquiries concerning qualified immunity.” Id. at 200-01, 121 S.Ct. 2151 . … Even if a reasonable jury might conclude the officer lacked probable cause, the arrest was not contrary to any clearly established law, so the officer was entitled to qualified immunity from a jury trial.

Gilles v. Repicky

511 F.3d 239 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Dec 21, 2007

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity protects officials from liability for civil damages as long as “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would … Repicky’s Entitlement to Qualified Immunity Nevertheless, Repicky is entitled to qualified immunity if his conduct did not violate a clearly established constitutional right, or if it was objectively reasonable for him to

Robert Wilkerson v. Richard Stalder

774 F.3d 845 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Dec 17, 2014

To be “clearly established” for purposes of qualified immunity, “[t]he contours of the right must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that right.” Anderson v. … Adequacy of Process We hold that Woodfox has a clearly established liberty interest.

Gerald R. Tlamka v. Otha Lee Serrell

244 F.3d 628 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Mar 23, 2001

Qualified immunity protects a governmental official from suit when his "conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known." Sexton v. … was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation."

Gentilello v. Rege

627 F.3d 540 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Dec 1, 2010

Defendants violated a clearly established right as required to overcome their qualified immunity defense. … A public official performing a discretionary function is entitled to qualified immunity in a civil action for damages, provided his conduct does not “violate clearly established federal statutory or constitutional rights