Case law

Ambrose v. Young

474 F.3d 1070 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jan 23, 2007

Qualified Immunity Analysis 33 The officials next argue they are entitled to qualified immunity even under the deliberate indifference standard. … immunity analysis in the affirmative, we turn to the second prong and ask whether the law was clearly established at the time of Ambrose's death, such that a reasonable officer would understand his conduct violated the law

Whisman Ex Rel. Whisman v. Rinehart

119 F.3d 1303 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jul 23, 1997

Qualified Immunity Government officials performing discretionary functions are entitled to qualified immunity unless they violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would … We take a broad view of what constitutes "clearly established" under the qualified immunity analysis. Munz v. Michael, 28 F.3d 795, 799 (8th Cir. 1994).

Ricardo McClinton v. Warden, Baldwin State Prison

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Apr 14, 2026

The district court found that each defendant was entitled to qualified immunity because the defendants did not violate any clearly established law. … Qualified immunity protects government officials from personal liability for their official conduct so long as “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights

Maurice Moore v. John Duffy

Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jul 6, 2001

Duffy's conduct was not objectively reasonable under clearly established law. Dr. Duffy contends on appeal that he is entitled to qualified immunity. … Qualified immunity shields 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

Turkmen v. Hasty

808 F.3d 197 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Dec 11, 2015

The Broad Shield of Qualified Immunity Controlling Supreme Court precedent instructs that qualified immunity must be afforded defendants in this case unless the constitutional rights asserted by plaintiffs were so clearly … Pooler and Wesley, JJ., Op., ante at [198], But qualified immunity dictates that damages actions not move forward unless the constitutional right at issue was so clearly established in the particular context of the case as

Schroeder v. McDonald

55 F.3d 454 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · May 19, 1995

The defense 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 … The qualified immunity test requires a two-part analysis: “(1) Was the law governing the official’s conduct clearly established? (2) Under that law, could a reasonable officer have believed the conduct was lawful?”

Hegarty v. Somerset County

53 F.3d 1367 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · May 17, 1995

The Qualified Immunity Doctrine 2. … The Qualified Immunity Analysis 3.

Morgan v. Canady

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Nov 29, 2006

Whether the Constitutional Right was Clearly Established [7] We proceed to the second qualified immunity inquiry: whether that right was clearly established. … A prison official is not entitled to qualified immunity if the law governing his conduct was clearly established such that a reasonable prison official would know that his conduct was unlawful.

Ivan Hernandez v. Michael F. Sheahan

711 F.3d 816 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Apr 1, 2013

Qualified immunity “protects government officials from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or consti- tutional rights of which a reasonable person would have … No. 12-1941 right and (2) whether that constitutional right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation.

Carmen Austell v. Kimberly Sprenger

690 F.3d 929 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Aug 22, 2012

The district court also decided the DHS defendants were protected by qualified immunity because TYBE failed to demonstrate the DHS defendants violated a clearly established constitutional right. … Young, 474 F.3d 1070, 1077 (8th Cir. 2007) (explaining, public officials are entitled to qualified immunity unless their actions “violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person

Gary Blankenhorn v. City of Orange Andy Romero Dung Nguyen Garrett Ross Tamara South Gray, Sergeant Montano, Officer Kayano, Officer Roman, Officer

485 F.3d 463 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · May 8, 2007

“Whether a right is ‘clearly established’ for purposes of qualified immunity is an inquiry that ‘must be undertaken in light of the specific context of the case, not as a broad general proposition.’ … Saucier's requirement that the plaintiffs asserted right be clearly established “does not mean that the very action at issue must have been held unlawful before qualified immunity is shed.” Wall v.

Juan A. Morales Morales v. Luis Rafael Arias, Etc.

856 F.2d 396 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Sep 8, 1988

Since, we said, a defendant loses his qualified immunity “only where the action in question is clearly unlawful,” the defendant was entitled to qualified immunity from damages liability. … Determining that the law was not clearly established at the time the official acted — with the result that the official is entitled to qualified immunity from damages liability — is one thing.

John Walker v. Dr. Ivy Benjamin, Dr. Adrian Feinerman, Dr. Ansar Ansari, Dr. Virgilio Pilapil, Pamela Dunbar and Vickie Rowland

293 F.3d 1030 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jun 18, 2002

Qualified immunity protects government officials from civil liability when performing discretionary functions so long as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … To overcome the defense of qualified immunity, a plaintiff must show the deprivation of a constitutional right, and must also show that the right was clearly established at the time of the violation.

Dornheim v. Sholes

430 F.3d 919 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Dec 7, 2005

On these facts, the Dornheims cannot establish that the social workers or police officers violated any clearly established constitutional rights during the child abuse investigations. … See Manzano, 60 F.3d at 510-11. 21 A Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal based on qualified immunity is appropriate "when the immunity is established on the face of the complaint." Whisman v.

John R. Griffin v. Dick Leonard, U.S.P.O. And Regional Director Vincent

821 F.2d 1124 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jul 17, 1987

for acts performed while engaged in their function to revoke parole. 6 At the very least, it is contended, they are entitled to qualified immunity and subjected to suits only if their conduct violated clearly established … law of which a reasonable person would have known. 7 Griffin contends that federal probation officers are entitled, at most, to qualified immunity and that Leonard’s conduct was unreasonable in the light of clearly established

Murphy v. State of Arkansas

127 F.3d 750 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Oct 15, 1997

Qualified Immunity. 14 The individual defendants argue that the district court erred in denying their motion for summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds. … A right is clearly established, for qualified immunity purposes, if the "contours of the right [are] sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that right." Anderson v.

Bank of Jackson County v. L. James Cherry Raymond G. Naeyaert

980 F.2d 1362 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jan 11, 1993

In the alternative, the court held that appellees were immune from suit under the qualified immunity doctrine, because any deprivation did not violate BJC’s clearly established constitutional rights. … The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials from civil liability for any action which “does not violate clearly established or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”

Sonia Kuessner v. Justin Wooten

987 F.3d 752 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jan 28, 2021

Qualified immunity shields government officers from civil damages liability. Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982). … An official is not entitled to qualified immunity if (1) the plaintiff demonstrates the violation of a constitutional right, and (2) that right was “clearly established” at the time of the official’s alleged wrongdoing.

Kurt Beathard v. Larry Lyons

129 F.4th 1027 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Feb 27, 2025

Allowing review of such or- ders is consistent with the goal of sparing a public official from the burden of defending a suit and standing trial when the right he is accused of violating was not clearly established at the … - ants were entitled to qualified immunity.

Erin Kosch v. Traverse City Area Pub. Schs.

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 26, 2024

Qualified immunity protects government officials “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights.” Harlow v. … Clearly Established Law Separately, even if Kosch established that she was deprived of her continuing tenure, she has not met her burden under qualified immunity’s clearly-established-law prong.