Case law

Art Tobias v. Daniel East

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Feb 25, 2020

“[O]fficers are entitled to qualified immunity under § 1983 unless (1) they violated a federal . . . constitutional right, and (2) the unlawfulness of their conduct was clearly established at the time.” … Because controlling precedent does not establish “beyond debate” that the officers’ conduct here shocks the conscience, the officers are entitled to qualified immunity.

Edward Drogosch v. Tim Metcalf

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Feb 25, 2009

Clearly established right For a right to be clearly established, “[t]he contours of the right must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that right.” … Drogosch has accordingly satisfied the “clearly established” prong of the qualified-immunity analysis. D.

97 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 5270, 97 Daily Journal D.A.R. 8559 Jay Ram v. Winona Rubin, in Her Capacity as Director of the Department of Human Services, State of Hawai'i, and William Silva, Jay Ram v. Winona Rubin, in Her Capacity as Director of the Department of Human Services County of Hawaii, a Municipal Corporation William Silva Elsie Kamahele, John Does 1-10 Jane Does 1-10 Doe Corporations 1-10 Doe Partnership 1-10 Doe Joint Ventures 1-10 and Doe Governmental Entities 1-10

118 F.3d 1306 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jul 2, 1997

suit under the doctrine of qualified immunity. … When an official asserts qualified immunity, we apply a two-part analysis: "1) Was the law governing the official's conduct clearly established?

Kelsey Smith v. Michael Whitsel

134 F.4th 962 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Apr 17, 2025

The court stated that, in 2019, the law clearly established that non-medical jail staff may not ignore a detainee in obvious medical distress. See Dobbey v. Mitchell- Lawshea, 806 F.3d 938, 941 (7th Cir. 2015). … But, as we have repeatedly explained, an interlocutory appeal is available only if this court can review the denial of qualified immunity as a matter of law. Johnson v.

Walter Himmelreich v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons

5 F.4th 653 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 22, 2021

Page 7 Fitzgerald ties our jurisdiction over her appeal to an appellate court’s well-established authority to review immediately appeals of district-court decisions denying qualified immunity. Mitchell v. … of which the plaintiff complains violated clearly established law.” 472 U.S. at 526.

Jacobs, Willie v. City of Chicago

215 F.3d 758 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jun 1, 2000

If the rights were not clearly established, then the official is immune from suit and the claim is dismissed. See Richardson v. McKnight, 521 U.S. 399, 403 , 117 S.Ct. 2100 , 138 L.Ed.2d 540 (1997). … Clearly Established Law We now consider whether the Defendant Officers’ conduct violated clearly established law. *771 At the time the search in this case was conducted, it was clearly established that a warrant is fatally

Robert Lackey v. County of Bernalillo and Matt Thomas

166 F.3d 1221 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jan 5, 1999

Qualified Immunity 27 Qualified immunity protects public officials from individual liability in actions brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 unless the officials violated "clearly established statutory or constitutional rights … If the plaintiff fails to demonstrate defendant's conduct violated the law, the court need not determine whether the law was clearly established. Hinton v.

Strand v. Minchuk

908 F.3d 300 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Nov 8, 2018

For the law to be clearly established - the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis - the "existing precedent must have placed the statutory or constitutional question beyond debate." … This same factual dispute also prevents us from concluding, as Officer Minchuk urges, that Strand's clearly established constitutional rights were not violated, the second prong of the qualified immunity inquiry.

Christopher Drew v. City of Des Moines

111 F.4th 881 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Aug 2, 2024

-3-  Officer Hemsted is entitled to qualified immunity unless “(1) the facts demonstrate the deprivation of a constitutional or statutory right, and (2) the right was clearly … Officer Hemsted is entitled to qualified immunity. III.

Golio v. Suggs

285 F. App'x 773 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · May 6, 2008

“Such jurisdiction is nevertheless limited to circumstances where the qualified immunity defense may be established as a matter of law.” Escalera v. … However, an arresting officer will be entitled to qualified immunity from a suit for damages if she can establish that there was “arguable probable cause” to arrest, “if either (a) it was objectively reasonable for the officer

Ralph Thomas v. Frank O. Gunter

Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jan 8, 1997

, such as the operation of penal institutions, enjoy qualified immunity. … The proper inquiry in the present case, therefore, is whether the free exercise of religion within a penal setting is a clearly established right. It has been "clearly established" since Cruz v.

Gray, William T. v. Poole, Theisha

275 F.3d 1113 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jan 8, 2002

Under this form of immunity, government officials are not subject to damages liability for the performance of their discretionary functions when "their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … These functions are subject to qualified, not abso- lute, immunity. In Malley v.

Howard L. Bingham v. City of Manhattan Beach Ernest Klevesahl, Jr. Hodgen Crossett Does, 1-10, Inclusive, and Robert Schreiber, Howard L. Bingham v. City of Manhattan Beach Ernest Klevesahl, Jr., and Robert Schreiber Hodgen Crossett

341 F.3d 939 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Aug 28, 2003

He posits a novel twist to the "clearly established" inquiry, contending that because it is not clearly established that damages may be obtained under § 1983 for an unlawful traffic stop, qualified immunity should apply. … Rather, in determining whether qualified immunity is available, those cases merely inquire whether the right at issue was clearly established in law.

Vieira v. Presley

988 F.2d 850 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Mar 17, 1993

The district court 1 ruled that the officials were entitled to qualified immunity. We affirm. … To be entitled to qualified immunity, an official’s conduct must be objectively reasonable with reference to clearly established law. Davis v. Scherer, 468 U.S. 183, 191 , 104 S.Ct. 3012, 3017 , 82 L.Ed.2d 139 (1984).

Jesus Hernandez v. USA

757 F.3d 249 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jun 30, 2014

The doctrine of qualified immunity, which operates the same under both § 1983 and Bivens , “protects public officials from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … In assessing qualified immunity, we determine “(1) whether the facts that the plaintiff has alleged make out a violation of a constitutional right; and (2) whether the right at issue was clearly established at the time of

George Clark v. Anthony Abdallah

131 F.4th 432 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Mar 13, 2025

Responding to a § 1983 claim, an officer may assert the defense of qualified immunity, which shields officers from damages suits unless their conduct “violate[d] clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … Clearly Established Law Defendants also argue that Plaintiffs have not demonstrated that they violated clearly established law.

Campbell v. Moore

92 F. App'x 29 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jan 14, 2004

Qualified immunity is intended to shield government officials performing discretionary functions, including police officers, “from liability from civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established … It is a defendant’s burden to establish that he is entitled to qualified immunity. See Beers-Capitol v. Whetzel, 256 F.3d 120 , 142 n. 15 (3d Cir.2001). As the Supreme Court held in Saucier v.

Henry Szabla v. City of Brooklyn Pk.

429 F.3d 1168 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Dec 1, 2005

Szabla’s clearly established right. … In Kuha , we held that the officers were entitled to qualified immunity because it was not clearly established at the time of their action, September 22, 1999 or indeed until Kuha itself was decided in 2003, 2 that it was

Collins Ex Rel. Campbell v. Bellinghausen

153 F.3d 591 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Aug 10, 1998

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.” … In ruling upon a defense of qualified immunity, we first determine whether the law that the defendant is accused of having violated was clearly established and then examine the information possessed by the defendant at the

Scott C. Smith v. Carol Noonan James Blodgett

992 F.2d 987 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · May 10, 1993

The court granted the State’s motion, finding that Noo-nan and Blodgett were entitled to qualified *989 immunity. … Because the court lacked a “clearly established decision regarding the parameters of prisoners’ rights to be free from [ad-seg] under the [WAC],” it absolved Noonan and Blodgett of any possible violation and held that qualified