Case law

Yeldell v. Cooper Green Hospital, Inc.

956 F.2d 1056 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Mar 30, 1992

Qualified immunity is available to “government officials performing discretionary functions ... insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … “[T]he relevant question on a motion for summary judgment based on a defense of qualified immunity is whether a reasonable official could have believed his or her actions were lawful in light of clearly established law and

Barbara Conner v. Rudy G. Reinhard

847 F.2d 384 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · May 19, 1988

Qualified Immunity 1. General Principles The doctrine of qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions from liability for civil damages. … Officials cannot receive qualified immunity, however, if their conduct violated clearly established constitutional rights of which a reasonable person *388 would have known. Id. at 818 , 102 S.Ct. at 2738 .

Baker v. Putnal

75 F.3d 190 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Feb 15, 1996

First, the court must determine whether the plaintiff has alleged a violation of a clearly established constitutional right. Id. at 231, 111 S.Ct. at 13 1792-93. … If the plaintiff fails this step, the defendant is entitled to qualified immunity.

Boyd, James v. Owen, Mickey

Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Mar 22, 2007

That does not end the inquiry, however, because quali- fied immunity nevertheless protects the defendants unless the constitutional right that was violated was clearly established. … He has failed to meet his burden of demonstrating that the constitutional viola- tion was clearly established, and the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity.

Big Cats of Serenity Springs, Inc. v. Rhodes

843 F.3d 853 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Dec 12, 2016

immunity because the violation was not clearly established under federal law. … Clearly Established Under qualified immunity, even if the inspectors violated the Fourth Amendment, they are entitled to immunity if no clearly established law would have informed them that a warrantless forcible

Jackson v. Mann

196 F.3d 316 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Nov 5, 1999

The Qualified Immunity Defense In general, public officials are entitled to qualified immunity if: (1) their conduct does not violate clearly established constitutional rights; or (2) it was objectively reasonable for them … not entitled to qualified immunity.

Guerrero v. Scarazzini

274 F. App'x 11 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Feb 23, 2008

Where the federal constitutional right at issue is clearly established, qualified immunity “protects a government actor if it was ‘objectively reasonable’ for him to believe that his actions were lawful at the time of the … In a false arrest case, “an arresting officer will still be entitled to qualified *13 immunity from a suit for damages if he can establish that there was ‘arguable probable cause’ to arrest.” Escalera v.

Valdez v. City & County of Denver

878 F.2d 1285 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jul 6, 1989

Even with the adoption of the objective qualified immunity standard in Harlow v. … established” law.

Thomas J. Anderson v. Jeffrey L. Larson

327 F.3d 762 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Apr 30, 2003

IV Qualified immunity shields government officials from federal suit unless their conduct violates a clearly established constitutional or statutory right of which a reasonable person would have known. Harlow v. … The inquiry "focuses on the objective legal reasonableness of the official's acts," and the qualified immunity defense fails if the official violates a clearly established right because "a reasonably competent public official

Hurlman v. Rice

927 F.2d 74 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Mar 4, 1991

For the reasons below, we dismiss the appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction. 25 The qualified immunity enjoyed by police officers protects them against a suit for damages " 'insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly … Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 , 102 S.Ct. 2727, 2738 , 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982)), or, where the rights were clearly established, insofar as it was objectively reasonable to believe that their acts did not violate those rights

Nadiya Williams-Boldware v. Denton County Texas

741 F.3d 635 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jan 31, 2014

They also moved to dismiss based upon qualified immunity. The district court ordered Williams-Boldware to file a Rule 7 reply on the issue of qualified immunity. … If the answer is in the affirmative, we then ask whether the official’s actions were objectively reasonable in light of the clearly established right.” Id.

Idelma Saenz v. City of McAllen

396 F. App'x 173 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Oct 4, 2010

of qualified immunity. … Because the state created danger theory as a basis of liability was not clearly established at the time the incident occurred, the individual defendants are entitled to qualified immunity.6 6 Appellants

Corey Kendig v. Nicholas Stolar

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

But we must not conflate our recognition of a protected right with a conclusion that the right is “clearly established” for qualified immunity purposes. Nor could we in this case. … The qualified immunity inquiry limits us to an assessment of Stolar’s conduct and whether a clearly established law placed him on notice that his actions violated Kendig’s Fourth Amendment right.

Notra Trulock, Iii v. Louis J. Freeh

275 F.3d 391 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Dec 28, 2001

The district court granted Defendants' motion to dismiss, holding that the Defendants, having violated no clearly established law, were entitled to qualified immunity. … In deciding whether a right is clearly established for qualified immunity purposes, the question is not whether the general right (here, the right to be free from unreasonable searches) is clearly established.

Wolf v. Winlock

34 F. App'x 457 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 23, 2002

A public official is entitled to qualified immunity, and thus shielded from suit under § 1983, for his actions if his conduct does not violate a clearly established statutory or constitutional right of which a reasonable … In determining whether a constitutional right is clearly established, the court must first look to decisions of the U.S.

Beaver v. City of Federal Way

301 F. App'x 704 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Nov 25, 2008

*705 MEMORANDUM ** The district court found that City of Federal Way police officers Douglas Laird and Heather Castro were entitled to qualified immunity for tasing appellant Ricky Beaver five times during his arrest on August … An officer is entitled to qualified immunity when his or her conduct is not a violation of an arrestee’s clearly established rights. Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 , 102 S.Ct. 2727 , 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982).

Kennedy v. LeFebvre

847 F.2d 482 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · May 25, 1988

hold] to be lawful, in light of clearly established law and the information the [officer executing the hold] possessed.” … Such a scenario is one in which qualified immunity does not attach. We affirm the decision of the district court.

Alvarado, Chad J. v. Litscher, Jon E.

Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Sep 28, 2001

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 a defense of qualified immunity, the plaintiff must first allege the deprivation of an actual constitutional right, and second, show that the right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation.

Jose Denis Rodriguez v. Juan Comas

888 F.2d 899 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Nov 7, 1989

Rodriguez] to be lawful, in light of clearly established law and the information the [arresting] officer[] possessed”. 3 We first examine the law, to determine whether the right allegedly violated was “clearly established … Comas therefore does not merit qualified immunity. Be *907 cause Mrs.

Brown v. Byerly

322 F. App'x 957 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Apr 14, 2009

PER CURIAM: Charles Byerly appeals the district court’s denial of his motion to dismiss based on the defense of qualified immunity. … violation because Appellee Malissa Brown was arrested pursuant to a valid warrant, and (3) he did not violate a clearly established law.