Case law

Manganiello v. City of New York

612 F.3d 149 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jul 23, 2010

Only the third aspect of the qualified immunity doctrine was genuinely at issue in the present case, for “[fjreedom from malicious prosecution is a constitutional right that has long been clearly established.” Kinzer v. … Although a mere mistake in the performance of an official duty may not deprive the officer of qualified immunity, the doctrine does not shield performance that either (a) was in violation of clearly established law, or (b

Clarence I. Taylor, Jr. v. David K. Waters, Individually

81 F.3d 429 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Apr 10, 1996

A government official is entitled to qualified immunity from civil damages for performing discretionary functions when his “conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … — unless the other issue is (1) inextricably intertwined with the decision of the lower court to deny qualified immunity or (2) consideration of the additional issue is necessary to ensure meaningful review of the qualified

Hammond v. Kunard

148 F.3d 692 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jun 11, 1998

Qualified Immunity The appellants next argue that them actions are protected by qualified immunity. … The doctrine of qualified immunity generally shields officials who perform discretionary functions from liability for civil damages “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional

Carabajal v. City of Cheyenne, WY

847 F.3d 1203 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Feb 6, 2017

Regardless, a hint as to what the law may be cannot substitute for clearly established law. See Mullenix, 136 S.Ct. at 309 . As Plaintiffs unequivocally acknowledge, the law simply is not clearly established. C. … Of course, this court's decision was vacated insofar as the "clearly established law” part of the qualified immunity analysis (as to one of the officers involved).

Megenity v. Stenger

27 F.3d 1120 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 23, 1994

When an official is cloaked with absolute immunity, it is not necessary to determine whether the plaintiff has a clearly established legal right because, even if he does, no relief is forthcoming. *1124 In the qualified immunity … analysis, however, we first look to see if the plaintiff has a clearly established statutory or constitutional right.

Perez v. Unified Government of Wyandotte County/Kansas City

432 F.3d 1163 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Dec 27, 2005

When a defendant raises a qualified immunity defense, the plaintiff bears the burden of establishing that the defendant’s conduct violated a constitutional or statutory right and that the right was clearly established … If de novo review of the alleged facts demonstrates that they do not amount to a violation of a clearly established right, we reverse a denial of summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds. Id.

Ruben Loya, Jr. v. Texas Department of Corrections

878 F.2d 860 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Aug 2, 1989

Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 731, 743 , 102 S.Ct. 2690, 2697 , 73 L.Ed.2d 349 (1982) (interlocutory appeal from the denial of qualified immunity). … On the merits we hold that TDC’s entitlement to immunity under the eleventh amendment is clearly established in this circuit. Ruiz v.

Natale v. Town of Ridgefield

927 F.2d 101 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Mar 5, 1991

A government official performing a discretionary function is entitled to qualified immunity provided his or her “conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … The threshold issue in determining the applicability of Katz’ qualified immunity defense is whether the Natales had a “clearly established right” to the permits at issue.

Qaid Rafeeq Azeez and Abdullah Muhammad v. James W. Fairman, Warden, John E. Wright, Asst. Warden, and A. Dodge, 120 (c.o.)

795 F.2d 1296 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jun 30, 1986

The only question is whether they violated any clearly established federal constitutional right. … The words “clearly established ... constitutional rights” may not be used to read the defense of immunity out of federal tort law by the facile expedient of stating constitutional rights in the most general possible terms

Marie Woolfolk, Administratrix of the Estate of Eric Rahmal Woolfolk Leroy and Marie Woolfolk v. Darren Smith City of Pine Bluff, Arkansas

81 F.3d 741 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Mar 12, 1996

The Supreme Court narrowed our jurisdiction to hear interlocutory qualified immunity appeals when it limited such appeals to a district court’s “determination about pre-existing ‘clearly established’ law.” Johnson v. … We conclude that the Woolfolks’ failure-to-train claim against the City is not “inextricably intertwined” with Smith’s claim of qualified immunity.

Tribble v. Gardner

860 F.2d 321 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Oct 25, 1988

The defendants in that case moved for summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity. … established rights. 9 Therefore, we hold that, viewing the facts in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, the district court was correct in denying defendants' motion for summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity

Griess v. State of Colorado

841 F.2d 1042 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Mar 15, 1988

The Supreme Court has indicated that when the issue with which we are concerned, i.e., whether constitutional rights allegedly violated were "clearly established" for purposes of qualified immunity under Harlow v. … Because the test for qualified immunity turns on whether a right is clearly established, courts should ordinarily determine the existence and character of the underlying constitutional violation(s) before proceeding to the

Lynch v. Barrett

703 F.3d 1153 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jan 4, 2013

“The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established . . . constitutional rights of which a reasonable officer … rights were not clearly established.”)

Mangieri v. Clifton

29 F.3d 1012 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Aug 24, 1994

A police officer is entitled to claim the cloak of qualified immunity "unless it is shown that, at the time of the incident, he violated a clearly established constitutional right." Spann v. … The right to be free from arrest without probable cause is a clearly established constitutional right. See Beck v.

Daniel Irish v. Keith McNamara

108 F.4th 715 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jul 18, 2024

Deputy McNamara moved to dismiss the complaint based on qualified immunity. … During argument on the motion, the district court observed that this was a “highly unfortunate accident,” but it nevertheless denied qualified immunity, reasoning that it was clearly established that a seizure occurred within

Joseph Ruffino, Randall A. Noble, and Emmett Doherty v. Michael Sheahan, Individually and in His Official Capacity as Sheriff of Cook County, Illinois

218 F.3d 697 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jun 27, 2000

Because the rationale that supports qualified immunity from suit in individual capacity cases is absent in official capacity cases, it is well established that the qualified immunity doctrine does not apply to official capacity … The law of qualified immunity requires a plaintiff to show (1) that she has asserted a violation of a constitutional right, and (2) that the right in question was clearly established at the time of the challenged action.

Dible v. Scholl

506 F.3d 1106 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Nov 8, 2007

Therefore we review only the district court’s decision to deny qualified immunity. … Moreover, this court has a broad view of what makes “clearly established law” for the purpose of qualified immunity. Bearden, 475 F.3d at 929 ; Hayes v. Long, 72 F.3d 70, 73 (8th Cir.1995).

Erika Mabes v. Shannon Thompson

Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Apr 28, 2025

Both sets of defendants invoked qual- ified immunity, contending that their actions did not violate the Mabeses’ clearly established rights. … Thompson’s en- titlement to qualified immunity naturally follows from the Mabeses’ failure to carry their “burden of demonstrating the violation of a clearly established right.” Forman v.

Johnson v. Clifton

74 F.3d 1087 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jan 26, 1996

clearly established law. … of clearly established law.

Frederick Allen v. Roy Cooper

895 F.3d 337 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Jul 10, 2018

In doing so, the district court explained that these defendants were not protected by qualified immunity because “the law of [copyright] infringement is clearly established.” … Qualified immunity “shields officials from civil liability so long as their conduct ‘does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’” Mullenix v.