Case law

Paul H. Frazell v. E.K. Flanigan

102 F.3d 877 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Dec 10, 1996

Flanigan argues that immunity attaches here because Frazell has been unable to produce a closely analogous case clearly establishing that his actions during the encounter were in violation of the Fourth Amendment. … To the extent that Flanigan’s conduct did “not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known,” he would be immune from Frazell’s damage claims. Harlow v.

Raspardo v. Carlone

Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Oct 6, 2014

[and]  [t]he  second  3 prong  of  the  qualified‐immunity  analysis  asks  whether  the  right  in  4 question was clearly established at the time of the violation.”   … violate  clearly  established  law.   

Ross v. Neff

905 F.2d 1349 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jul 19, 1990

the 'objective legal reasonableness' of the action ... assessed in light of the legal rules that were 'clearly established' at the time it was taken." … We consider the issue, however, because the district court made specific legal holdings with regard to qualified immunity and charged the jury with respect to McLemore's qualified immunity defense, and we may affirm the court

Washington v. Kirksey

811 F.2d 561 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Mar 2, 1987

Qualified Immunity 13 Kirksey contends that the district court erred in failing to find that his conduct would be shielded from liability under the doctrine of qualified immunity. In Harlow v. … Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 , 102 S.Ct. 2727 , 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982), the Supreme Court established an objective test of qualified immunity: "[G]overnment officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from

Matthew Howell v. Justin McCormick

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 25, 2025

And because the officers did not violate clearly established law, qualified immunity protects them. B. … In short, because probable cause supported “at least one of the charges,” Howell cannot establish that McCormick infringed “clearly established law” and so “qualified immunity” protects him. Rasawehr v.

Yvonne L. v. New Mexico Department of Human Services

959 F.2d 883 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Mar 24, 1992

Because the court found no clearly established right, the court upheld the qualified immunity defenses of defendants. … effect of converting qualified immunity into absolute immunity.”

Jerome Jarrett v. Town of Yarmouth, Gerard Britt, Cheryl Nugent Gomsey, Richard White, Peter McClelland Robert Chapman

331 F.3d 140 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Jun 12, 2003

a matter of law, arguing inter alia that the verdicts against them could not stand because the two officers were entitled to qualified immunity. … Katz, 533 U.S. 194 , 121 S.Ct. 2151 , 150 L.Ed.2d 272 (2001), the Supreme Court offered the following general guidance to courts reviewing qualified immunity determinations: “A court required to rule upon the qualified immunity

Velez v. Levy

401 F.3d 75 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Mar 11, 2005

Consequently, with respect to these claims, the defendants could not have violated the clearly established constitutional rights of the plaintiff, and they are entitled to qualified immunity. … It is well-established that defendants are shielded by qualified immunity as long as their conduct "does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known."

Rodriguez v. Maricopa County Community College District

605 F.3d 703 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · May 20, 2010

Qualified Immunity It’s clearly established in our circuit that public employees are entitled under the Equal Protection Clause to be free of purposeful workplace harassment on the basis of protected status. … was not clearly established.

Mariana v. Fisher

338 F.3d 189 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jul 30, 2003

That immunity is so potent that it protects petitioning notwithstanding an improper purpose or motive. Id. The doctrine was first established in E.R.R. Presidents Conference v. … To qualify as state action under the Midcal test, the challenged restraint must, first, be one that is “ ‘clearly articulated and affirmatively expressed as state policy,’ ” and, second, the resulting antitrust violation

Forbes v. Township of Lower Merion

76 F. App'x 475 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Oct 1, 2003

Rather, our jurisdiction is limited to “review[ing] whether the set of facts identified by the district court is sufficient *477 to establish a violation of a clearly established constitutional right.” Id. … As we have emphasized, we must accept these facts as true for the purposes of this appeal and inquire only whether they are “sufficient to establish a violation of a clearly established constitutional right.”

Calderon v. Kansas Department of Social & Rehabilitation Services

181 F.3d 1180 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jul 6, 1999

The district court held that Eleventh Amendment immunity, judicial immunity, and qualified immunity protected defendants from suit. … Under this doctrine, government officials are immune from liability for damages “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have

Charles F. Cutting v. Robert Muzzey

724 F.2d 259 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Jan 10, 1984

Reference to good faith suggests that the court was thinking of qualified immunity. … In sum, were appellees to be accorded absolute immunity, there would be little need or room for the invocation by public officials of qualified immunity.

Davis v. McKinney

518 F.3d 304 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Feb 21, 2008

Evaluating a claim for qualified immunity is a two-step inquiry. First, a court must decide whether the plaintiff’s allegations, if true, establish a violation of a clearly established right. Hare v. … Even if the government official’s conduct violates a clearly established right, the official is entitled to qualified immunity if his conduct was objectively reasonable. Id.

Levin v. Childers

101 F.3d 44 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Nov 20, 1996

Childers submitted that he was protected by qualified immunity. 4 Dr. … Levin was by no means "clearly established" at the time of the brief suspension of Levin's Medicaid payments.

Good News Employee Ass'n v. Hicks

223 F. App'x 734 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Mar 5, 2007

Qualified immunity protects appellees unless the court determines that appellants “ha[ve] shown that the action complained of constituted a violation of [their] constitutional rights,” “the violated right was clearly established … [that] the law regarding such *736 claims will rarely, if ever, be sufficiently ‘clearly established’ to preclude qualified immunity....” Moran v. Washington, 147 F.3d 839, 847 (9th Cir.1998).

Darryl T. Coggins v. Police Officer Craig Buonora, in His Individual and

Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jan 13, 2015

In addition to his absolute immunity claims, Buonora also challenges on  appeal the district court’s denial of qualified immunity.   … As the district court properly concluded, the alleged  falsification of evidence and the related conspiracy, if true, constitute a violation  of clearly established law, and no objectively reasonable public official could

Dr. Judith Piesco v. The City of New York, Dept. Of Personnel, Juan Ortiz and Nicholas Laporte, Jr.

933 F.2d 1149 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jun 3, 1991

The qualified immunity doctrine shields government officials performing discretionary functions from liability for civil damages insofar as their actions did not violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights … Even where the rights were clearly established, officials are immune if it was objectively reasonable for them to believe that their acts did not violate those rights. Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 639 (1987).

Aubrey L. Hart and Judy D. Hart, Cross-Appellants v. Dudley Walker, Cross-Appellee

720 F.2d 1436 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Dec 16, 1983

immunity. … Thus, the district court’s finding that Walker was not entitled to qualified immunity is correct. IV. DAMAGES.

Joseph Locurto v. Howard Safir, Commissioner of the New York City Police Department, the City of New York and Rudolph Giuliani, Mayor of the City of New York, Jonathan Walters v. Rudolph Giuliani, Mayor of the City of New York, Thomas Von Essen, Commissioner of the Fire Department of the City of New York, and the City of New York, Robert Steiner v. Rudolph Giuliani, Mayor of the City of New York, Thomas Von-Essen, Commissioner of the New York City Fire Department, the City of New York

264 F.3d 154 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Aug 27, 2001

Defendants further asserted they were entitled to qualified immunity because their actions were objectively reasonable in light of clearly established law. 25 Following oral argument on the cross-motions for summary judgment … In such a case, the qualified immunity doctrine focuses only on whether the government official's actions were objectively reasonable in light of clearly established law, without regard for possible subjective malice.