Case law

Wallace v. Wellborn

204 F.3d 165 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Feb 8, 2000

To establish that the agents are not entitled to summary judgment based on qualified immunity, Wallace must satisfy a three-part test. … The district court held that Wallace had no clearly established constitutional right to a prior adversarial hearing, and the agents were entitled to qualified immunity.

George Karnes v. Thomas Skrutski, in His Individual Capacity Edward Kowalski, in His Individual Capacity

62 F.3d 485 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Aug 3, 1995

We hold the law was clearly established for purposes of qualified immunity. 2. … Where the law is clearly established and proof of the elements of the plaintiff's prima facie case would defeat the immunity, no qualified immunity defense is available. Appellant's Br. at 36.

Eversole v. Steele

59 F.3d 710 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jul 14, 1995

However, “[t]he defense of qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … Qualified immunity will shield a police officer from § 1983 liability if “ ‘a reasonable officer could have believed [the plaintiffs arrest] to be lawful, in light of clearly established law and the information the [arresting

Robert Ward v. City of Sherwood, Arkansas

Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Apr 28, 2026

Qualified immunity shields a government official from suit under § 1983 if his “conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. … We doubt it is clearly established for purposes of qualified immunity that Ward’s use of profanity in the presence of children, after a warning to desist, is protected speech. See Prose v. Wendover, 96 F.

Hesse v. Town of Jackson, Wyo.

541 F.3d 1240 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Sep 15, 2008

Nevertheless, we may determine whether “a given set of facts violates clearly established law.” See id. … We REVERSE the order of the district court denying qualified immunity and REMAND this case with direction to enter judgment granting qualified immunity to all Defendants on all federal claims.

Hansen v. Bennett

948 F.2d 397 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Nov 27, 1991

If Bennett was attempting to suppress Hansen's speech on the basis of its content, then he violated clearly established rights and is not entitled to qualified immunity. Collinson v. … If, on the other hand, he was enforcing an appropriately limited time, place, and manner restriction, then he did not violate clearly established rights, Jones v.

Arthur H. Russell v. Bill Hardin, and Major McPherson

879 F.2d 417 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jul 18, 1989

the present Chief Justice was correct in his skepticism regarding the workability of the Supreme Court’s qualified immunity rule established in Harlow . … he concedes are clearly established.” 107 S.Ct. 3043 .

Rodney FLETCHER, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Lynne KALINA, Defendant-Appellant

93 F.3d 653 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Aug 22, 1996

The district court explicitly noted that qualified immunity was a question of fact in this case. … We emphasize that Kalina may be able to avoid liability by showing at trial that her conduct did not violate a clearly established right of which a reasonable person would have known. See Harlow v.

Norwood v. Bain

166 F.3d 243 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Jan 8, 1999

to qualified immunity. *246 I. … Wilkinson, 832 F.2d at 1342 (holding officers were entitled to qualified immunity on similar facts because law not clearly established).

Karow v. Fuchs

695 F. App'x 966 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jun 16, 2017

The district court granted summary judgment to the defendants, ruling that they are entitled to qualified immunity because it has not been clearly established that prisoners are entitled to place public solicitations of this … Public officials are entitled to qualified immunity unless their acts violate clearly established law. See, e.g., White v. Pauly, — U.S. -, 137 S.Ct. 548 , 196 L.Ed.2d 463 (2017).

Montoute v. City of Sebring

114 F.3d 181 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jun 10, 1997

The Qualified Immunity Standard On April 11, 1993, the date Sergeant Carr shot Montoute, the law regarding the use of excessive force to apprehend fleeing suspects was clearly established. … CONCLUSION To defeat Sergeant Carr's qualified immunity defense, Montoute had the burden of establishing that under the circumstances no reasonable officer could have believed that Montoute posed a risk of serious

Rykers v. Alford

832 F.2d 895 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Nov 25, 1987

Officer Maurice Fuqua Officer Fuqua is protected by qualified immunity for his official acts, so long as he “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have … Qualified immunity is an affirmative defense that must be established by the official. Harlow, 457 U.S. at 815 , 102 S.Ct. at 2736 .

Roska v. Sneddon

437 F.3d 964 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Feb 9, 2006

To overcome a qualified immunity defense, a plaintiff must first establish a violation of a constitutional or statutory right and then show that the right was clearly established. Garramone v. … Usually, if the law is clearly established at the time of defendant’s conduct, a qualified immunity defense will fail. Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818-19 , 102 S.Ct. 2727 , 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982).

Johnson v. Government of the District of Columbia

734 F.3d 1194 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Nov 15, 2013

In Bame , this Court, addressing only the “clearly established” stage of the qualified immunity analysis, found Dillard entitled to qualified immunity for Fourth Amendment claims brought by male plaintiffs — claims otherwise … As a result, Dillard is entitled to qualified immunity because the Fourth Amendment right he is accused of violating was not clearly established at the time of any violation.

Michael Zieper, Mark Wieger, Becamation v. Joseph Metzinger, Lisa Korologos, Docket No. 05-5250-Cv

474 F.3d 60 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jan 19, 2007

Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, governmental actors are “shield[ed] ... from suits for damages ... unless their actions violate clearly-established rights of which an objectively reasonable official would have known … Having already determined that they do, we must turn to the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis and determine whether the defendants’ actions violated clearly established constitutional rights of which a reasonable

Williams v. United States

957 F.2d 742 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Feb 14, 1992

The issue before us is therefore whether or not the record establishes governmental immunity under 33 U.S.C. § 702c. 1 The Supreme Court construed the immunity provision in United States v. … Projects upstream of the facility in question might qualify to trigger the Act if the proper record were made, but the mere presence of a qualifying project upstream of the injury would not immunize all governmental activities

Brandon Wheeler v. Mark Kidder

14 F.4th 843 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Sep 29, 2021

-13- the purely legal questions of ‘whether a dispute identified by the district court is material’ and ‘whether the allegedly infringed federal right was clearly established.’” … right was clearly established at the time of the defendant’s alleged misconduct.”

Vaughn v. United States Small Business Administration

65 F.3d 1322 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Sep 21, 1995

Because we conclude that Whitmore did not violate any of Vaughn’s clearly established rights, we REVERSE the district court’s refusal to grant Whitmore qualified immunity. I. … Under Harlow, an exercise of such discretion only loses the protection of qualified immunity when a clearly established right has been violated.

Moore v. City of Desloge, Mo.

647 F.3d 841 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jul 28, 2011

The qualified immunity doctrine provides “that government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established … In analyzing a claim of qualified immunity, we may examine the two key prongs—whether a right was violated and whether the asserted right was clearly established—in either order. See Camreta v.

Anthony Martin v. Susan Duffy

858 F.3d 239 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Jun 1, 2017

And we further conclude that Duffy is not entitled to qualified immunity from Martin’s retaliation claim because, under this Court’s precedent, it was clearly established at the time Duffy placed Martin in segregation that … to qualified immunity.