Case law

Johnson v. Clifton

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

clearly established law. … of clearly established law.

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

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.

JOHN W. WALKER, — v. CITY OF PINE BLUFF, —

414 F.3d 989 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jul 21, 2005

Grace is entitled to qualified immunity unless he violated a clearly established right of which a reasonable person would have kndwn. Harlow v. … probable cause ... that is, whether the officer should have known that the arrest violated plaintiffs clearly established right.”

Cugini v. City of New York, Palazzola

941 F.3d 604 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Oct 25, 2019

It granted the defendantsʹ motion for summary judgment, however, on the ground that Palazzola was entitled to qualified immunity because his behavior did not constitute a violation of a clearly established constitutional … However, because at the time of the plaintiffʹs arrest Palazzolaʹs actions did not violate clearly established constitutional law, the district court correctly concluded that his actions were protected by qualified immunity

Susan Fisler Silberstein v. City of Dayton

440 F.3d 306 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Mar 3, 2006

Qualified immunity protects government officials performing discretionary functions unless their conduct violates a clearly established statutory or constitutional right of which a reasonable person in the official’s position … Whether Silberstein’s First Amendment rights were clearly established Having found that no First Amendment violation occurred, we need not address the “clearly established” prong of the qualified immunity analysis.

Henry S. Kijonka v. Michael Seitzinger

363 F.3d 645 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Apr 14, 2004

We cannot find a reported Illinois case that found the elements of assault satisfied in any case remotely like this one, and this dooms Rietz’s defense of qualified immunity. … Kirksey, 885 F.2d 476, 478 (8th Cir.1989), but it goes far to establish qualified immunity.

Hollingsworth v. Hill

110 F.3d 733 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Apr 4, 1997

Hollingsworth relies are not clearly established. Ms. Hollingsworth argues that Deputy Hill is not entitled to qualified immunity because a reasonable person in Hill’s position would have known that entry into Ms. … Objective Reasonableness and Extraordinary Circumstances Once the plaintiff has established the inference that the defendant’s conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right, a qualified immunity defense

Heflin v. Stewart County

958 F.2d 709 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Mar 9, 1992

The defendants now argue that the court should have submitted their qualified immunity defense to the jury. That is clearly not the law. We stated in Poe v. … Haydon, 853 F.2d 418, 424 (6th Cir.1988), that “[resolution of qualified immunity is purely a question of law.”

Ashcroft v. al-Kidd

563 U.S. 731 · Supreme Court of the United States · May 31, 2011

(a) Qualified immunity shields a government official from money damages unless (1) the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that right was “clearly established” at the time of the challenged conduct … Ashcroft did not violate clearly established law and thus is enti tled to qualified immunity.

Ladd v. Thibault

402 F. App'x 618 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Dec 6, 2010

DePrisco, 432 F.3d 98, 107 (2d Cir. 2005). 16 “Government actors have qualified immunity to § 1983 claims 17 ‘insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly 18 established statutory or constitutional rights of which … Thus, “[a] qualified immunity defense is 23 established if (a) the defendant’s action did not violate 24 clearly established law, or (b) it was objectively 25 reasonable for the defendant to believe that his action

Eddie O. Buckley, Jr. v. Russell Rogerson, Warden Imcc Paul W. Loeffelholz, M.D.

133 F.3d 1125 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jan 21, 1998

DISCUSSION Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, a government official is immune from suit unless the conduct complained of violated “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … As we have noted in previous cases, this court has taken a “broad view” of what constitutes clearly established law for purposes of qualified immunity. Id. at 677.

Reynaldo Ramirez v. Jim Wells County, Texas

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · May 30, 2013

Because there was no false arrest, no constitutional violation occurred, and, accordingly, we have no occasion to reach the part of the qualified immunity analysis that asks whether the law was clearly established. … We have explained the ‘clearly established’ prong as follows: Qualified immunity should not be denied unless the law is clear in the more particularized sense that reasonable officials should be “on notice

Behrens v. Pelletier

516 U.S. 299 · Supreme Court of the United States · Feb 21, 1996

On the merits of the appeal, the court rejected the argument that petitioner enjoyed qualified immunity because he had not violated any “clearly established right.” … allegations state a claim of violation of clearly established law, a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal before the commencement of discovery.

Tortu v. Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department

556 F.3d 1075 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Mar 3, 2009

’ qualified immunity claims. … The determination of qualified immunity at step two is strictly a legal question of whether, even though the facts alleged by the plaintiff make out a constitutional violation, that constitutional right was not clearly established

Askari Abdullah Muhammad, 017434 v. Louie L. Wainwright, Richard Dugger, Clayton C. Strickland, David Watson, Thomas L. Barton, R.R. Music

839 F.2d 1422 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Dec 28, 1987

Muhammad further argues that because this area of the law was clearly established, defendants should not be permitted to avail themselves of qualified immunity. … Broadly defining “clearly established law” as Muhammad suggests significantly undermines part of the rationale for the qualified immunity defense.

Reynaldo Ramirez v. Jim Wells County, Texas

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · May 24, 2013

Because there was no false arrest, no constitutional violation occurred, and, accordingly, we have no occasion to reach the part of the qualified immunity analysis that asks whether the law was clearly established. … We have explained the ‘clearly established’ prong as follows: Qualified immunity should not be denied unless the law is clear in the more particularized sense that reasonable officials should be “on notice

Michael L. Davis v. John Zirkelbach

149 F.3d 614 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jul 9, 1998

Ordinarily, because Lenn is entitled to qualified immunity from a suit based on the legal advice he gave to the police officers, we would ask whether his actions violated a clearly established statutory or constitutional … In Harlow , the Supreme Court explained its scope as follows: *620 If the law was clearly established, the immunity defense ordinarily should fail, since a reasonably competent public official should know the law governing

Colston v. Barnhart

130 F.3d 96 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jul 29, 1998

Disputes over the application of the clearly-established-law prong of the qualified-immunity inquiry are separable from the merits of a controversy because “‘[a]n appellate court reviewing the denial of the defendant … The semantic switch from discussing the typical qualified-immunity issue of “clearly established law” to a hypothetical (in Behrens) issue of “objective legal reasonableness” creates many of the problems that are now plaguing

Peter I. Diamondstone v. Christopher A. MacAluso Leroy Prior, David R. Stanton, A. James Walton, Jr., and State of Vermont

148 F.3d 113 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jun 22, 1998

Qualified Immunity i. … Even “[w]here a right is clearly established, ‘the defendants may nonetheless establish immunity by showing that reasonable persons in their position would not have understood that their conduct was within the scope of the