Case law

Harris v. Champion

51 F.3d 901 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Mar 30, 1995

question and prior law ... establishing that the defendant's actions were clearly prohibited. … established constitutional rights with specificity, or establish that defendants' actions were clearly prohibited at the time they were taken. 5 See id.

National Commodity & Barter Ass'n v. Archer

31 F.3d 1521 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Aug 4, 1994

qualified immunity. … However as we explain later, we 'decide only one specific question on qualified immunity— whether the defendants’ alleged conduct violated clearly established First Amendment law.

Arkan Ali v. Donald Rumsfeld

649 F.3d 762 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jun 21, 2011

Finally, the district court held that qualified immunity protected the defendants from the Bivens claims because, even if the plaintiffs possess constitutional rights, “those rights were not clearly established at the time … Furthermore, we concluded the defendants were protected by qualified immunity because, even assuming arguendo the detainees possessed rights under the Fifth and Eighth Amendments, those rights were not clearly established

Thomas D. Powell v. M.C. Lennon, John Magathlin, Larry Parrish, Bobby Moore, C.W. Ala, Ed Averette

914 F.2d 1459 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Oct 15, 1990

In order to defeat a claim of qualified immunity, a plaintiff must show that the right allegedly violated was clearly established and that the contours of the right were sufficiently clear that a reasonable officer would … Kemp, 891 F.2d 829 , 834 n. 10 (11th Cir.1990) (cautioning against expansive definitions of qualified immunity that “add an unwarranted degree of rigidity to the law of qualified immunity.”). *1464 It is clearly established

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. … Robbins' determination that probable cause existed to sign the certificate was reasonable under the circumstances and he did not violate clearly established law."

Hamm v. Powell

874 F.2d 766 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jun 6, 1989

Nevertheless, they did not waive their right not to be held liable for conduct that did not violate clearly established law. 19 In Harlow, the Supreme Court reshaped the doctrine of qualified immunity and held that "government … officials performing discretionary functions, generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable

Eugene v. Karman

889 F.2d 701 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jan 22, 1990

Plaintiffs would be able to convert the rule of qualified immunity that our cases plainly establish into a rule of virtually unqualified liability simply by alleging violation of extremely abstract rights.... … The Supreme Court could have defined "clearly established" in the immunity context as the majority in this case has defined it, to mean "so clearly declared in existing case law that no court, advocate or legal scholar could

Lawrence Johnson v. Ronald Testman, Lonnie James

380 F.3d 691 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Aug 18, 2004

In those circumstances the question would be whether or not it is clearly established ... … In those circumstances there would be a clearly established right under the Eighth Amendment not to be subjected to that sort of cruel and inhumane punishment that would deprive the defendant on those facts of qualified immunity

Harris v. Victoria Independent School District

168 F.3d 216 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Mar 12, 1999

The Defendants contend they are entitled to qualified immunity because the law concerning the Plaintiffs’ type of speech was. not clearly established at the time of their conduct. … The Plaintiffs argue there does not have to be a case directly on point for the law to be deemed clearly established, and that existing employee speech law was clearly established under these facts. See Anderson v.

Husain v. Springer

494 F.3d 108 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jul 13, 2007

Springer’s conduct violated clearly established law, she is entitled to qualified immunity only if it was objectively reasonable for her to believe that her actions were lawful at the time she nullified the election. … Significantly, the defendants do not address this basis for qualified immunity, i.e., whether the contours of the First Amendment right Springer violated were clearly established in 1997.

Moore v. Felger

19 F.3d 1054 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Apr 28, 1994

Even under the law as it existed at the time of the search, the inadvertent discovery requirement was not clearly established for the purposes of qualified immunity analysis. … Thus, even if a defunct constitutional right could support a Bivens action, the agents would be entitled to qualified immunity because the right was not clearly established at the time of the search.

Hummel-Jones v. Strope

25 F.3d 647 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · May 26, 1994

Qualified Immunity Since we reverse the summary judgment, we address the alternative finding of qualified immunity. The doctrine of qualified immunity protects well-intentioned officers attempting to do their duty. … If a reasonable officer would have known, on the information available, that his or her actions violated clearly-established law, qualified immunity is not appropriate.

Lowery v. Stovall

92 F.3d 219 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Aug 6, 1996

there was no clearly established standard to govern Redd's actions. … A defendant, such as Stovall, is entitled to qualified immunity if his conduct did not contravene "clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known." Harlow v.

Hunter v. Heath

26 F. App'x 754 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jan 28, 2002

This Court reviews the district court’s denial of qualified immunity de novo. Watkins v. City of Oakland, Cal., 145 F.3d 1087, 1092 (9th Cir.1998). … Government officials performing discretionary functions receive qualified immunity under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 so long as their conduct does not violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable

Jennings v. Patton

635 F.3d 655 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jun 17, 2011

and qualified immunity. … immunity protects public 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.”

McWilliams v. Dinapoli

40 F.4th 1118 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jul 19, 2022

. _________________________________ This appeal involves a defense of qualified immunity. … DiNapoli is not entitled to qualified immunity. Mr. DiNapoli urges qualified immunity even under the district court’s factual determinations.

Huth v. Haslun

598 F.3d 70 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Mar 11, 2010

To overcome the defense of qualified immunity, a plaintiff must show both (1) the violation of a constitutional right and (2) that that constitutional right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation. … Ct. 808, 816 (2009) (“Qualified immunity is applicable unless the official’s conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right.”).

Sylvia Avalos v. City of Glenwood

382 F.3d 792 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Sep 2, 2004

Qualified Immunity When performing discretionary functions, government officials generally are shielded from civil liability so long “as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … the plaintiffs assert were clearly established at the time of Detective Wake’s conduct.

Sean Stearns v. Cathy Dean

122 F.4th 699 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Dec 4, 2024

“Qualified immunity shields a public official from suit for civil damages when his conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … Therefore, qualified immunity applies unless Sergeant Spire violated a constitutional right that was clearly established at the time of violation. See id.

Raymond J. Hughes, Jr. v. Dale Meyer, John Buss and Robert Combs

880 F.2d 967 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jan 10, 1990

Police officers are generally protected by qualified immunity if their allegedly unlawful actions meet the test of “ ‘objective legal reasonableness’ ... assessed in the light of the legal rules that were ‘clearly established … Meyer’s and Combs’s actions did not obviously violate that standard, and accordingly we find that the district court’s conclusion of qualified immunity is not clearly erroneous.