Case law

Estate of B.I.C. Ex Rel. C.S.C. v. Gillen

702 F.3d 1182 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Dec 19, 2012

Clearly Established Law Ms. … Gillen briefly argues that, if the court must reach the second part of the qualified immunity inquiry — whether the law was clearly established — a reasonable person in her position would not have been aware that she was

Baldwin v. Placer County

418 F.3d 966 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Aug 8, 2005

The County moved for summary judgment on the ground of the qualified immunity of the officers. … [5] The plaintiffs’ established civil rights were violated by presentation of the false affidavit. Liston, 120 F.3d at 972-73. Qualified immunity was rightly denied. [6] Conspiracy.

Colvin v. Caruso

605 F.3d 282 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · May 13, 2010

As a state employee, however, Riley is entitled to qualified immunity if his “conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” See id. … that right was clearly established.”

Akande, Adetunji v. Grounds, Randall

Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Feb 9, 2009

No. 07-3800 7 Qualified immunity shields government officials from liability for civil damages where their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or … Katz, the Supreme Court established a two-step inquiry for courts ruling upon the qualified immunity issue.3 See Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194, 201 (2001).

Niki Frenchko v. Paul Monroe

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Nov 26, 2025

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity protects government officials for actions taken within the scope of their authority which do not “violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … And because Frenchko cannot succeed in demonstrating a violation of her Fourth Amendment rights to satisfy the first qualified-immunity prong, we need not reach the question of whether the right she claims was clearly established

Torres-Rivera v. Calderon-Serra

412 F.3d 205 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Jun 14, 2005

In the second stage, the question is "whether the right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation such that a reasonable officer would be on notice that his conduct was unlawful." Id. … And in the last stage, we ask "whether a reasonable officer, similarly situated, would understand that the challenged conduct violated the clearly established right at issue." Id.

Lynda Sue Hancock v. Richard M. Hobbs, City of Marietta

967 F.2d 462 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jul 14, 1992

Hancock also contends that the district court should not have instructed the jury on the affirmative defense of qualified immunity. … She argues that qualified immunity is a question of law for the court and not an issue of fact for the jury.

98 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 8049, 98 Daily Journal D.A.R. 11,185 Theodore Chester Kulas v. Cso Valdez Officer Kotzin, Psychiatric Ward, Madison Street Jail Officer Fay Officer Lambert Maricopa County Sheriff's Office, Sgt. Medina, Corrections Officer, Psychiatric Ward at Madison Street Jail Sgt. Ceselini Potts Hoffert Osran

159 F.3d 453 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Oct 29, 1998

have known. 30 The Court stated that the limits of qualified immunity should be defined in objective terms, with the reasonableness of an official's conduct measured by reference to clearly established law. … However, "[i]f the law was clearly established, the immunity defense ordinarily should fail, since a reasonably competent public official should know the law governing his conduct."

Devose v. Addison

172 F.3d 632 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Apr 20, 1999

immunity is deciding whether the claimant has asserted the violation of a clearly established federal right. … Devose identified a clearly established right not to be arrested in the absence of probable cause, see Hannah v.

Burrell v. Virginia

395 F.3d 508 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Jan 27, 2005

We review a district court's denial of qualified immunity de novo. Rogers v. Pendleton, 249 F.3d 279, 285 (4th Cir.2001). … If the challenged conduct did violate a clearly established constitutional right, qualified immunity does not bar the suit. Id. at 200, 202, 121 S.Ct. 2151 .

Wye Oak Technology, Inc. v. Republic of Iraq

24 F.4th 686 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Feb 4, 2022

Shaw, 478 U.S. 310, 318 (1986)), a foreign state “will not be found to have [explicitly] waived its immunity unless it has clearly and unambiguously done so[,]” id. … Indeed, an established treatise that Wye Oak relies on specifically states that “the [commercial activities] exception’s second clause provides for jurisdiction where a defendant qualifying as a ‘foreign state’ under the

Amanda Rakes v. Jonathan Roederer

117 F.4th 968 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Sep 25, 2024

Rakes has established a triable state-created danger claim, they are nonetheless entitled to qualified immunity. … To violate clearly established law—the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis—“existing precedent must have placed the statutory or constitutional question beyond debate.”

George Marvaso v. Richard Sanchez

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 21, 2020

As Plaintiffs concede, they bear the burden of overcoming qualified immunity by showing that the alleged statutory or constitutional violation was clearly established at the time of the violation. (19-1882 Appellee’s Br. … But “whether a particular complaint sufficiently alleges a clearly established violation of law . . . is both ‘inextricably intertwined with, and ‘directly implicated by,’ the qualified-immunity defense,” so we have pendent

Dunigan v. Noble

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Nov 29, 2004

Moreover, I do not believe that Officer Noble should be immune from liability, as his conduct was objectively unreasonable in light of clearly established law at the time of the incident. … The doctrine of qualified immunity is driven by the notion that, although a government official may have violated a citizen’s rights, “‘[i]f the law at that time was not clearly established, an official could not . . . fairly

Harrison v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons

298 F. Supp. 3d 174 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Feb 28, 2018

The Court next turns to the individual defendants' qualified immunity argument. … Courts considering the question more recently have similarly held that this right is clearly established for purposes of qualified immunity.

No. 90-1166

960 F.2d 1493 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · May 11, 1992

to balance competing interests may make it more difficult to find the law "clearly established" when assessing claims of qualified immunity. … The availability of qualified immunity does not depend on whether a constitutional violation has occurred.

Robles v. Prince George's County, Maryland

302 F.3d 262 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Aug 26, 2002

Even though the officers’ actions deprived Robles of an actual constitutional right, Rozar and DeBarros may still be entitled to qualified immunity if that right was not clearly established at the time of the incident. … Police officers performing discretionary acts “generally are granted a qualified immunity and are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional

Joe Marsh, Leroy Owens v. Butler County, Alabama, the Butler County Commission, Defendants

212 F.3d 1318 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · May 30, 2000

Qualified immunity protects government officials from civil suit when they have acted within their discretionary functions in a manner that violates “no clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … “Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity in a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss only if the complaint fails to allege facts that would show a violation of a clearly established constitutional right.” Kyle K. v.

Fuller v. Jewelry

950 F.2d 1437 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Dec 11, 1991

are entitled to qualified immunity from damages if their conduct does not violate " 'clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.' " Thorsted v. … It is equally well established that qualified immunity applies if a reasonable police officer could have believed that his or her conduct was lawful, in light of clearly established law and the information the officers possessed

Dean Kent v. Jared Katz, Individually and as a Police Officer for the Town of Colchester

312 F.3d 568 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Dec 10, 2002

DISCUSSION A qualified immunity defense is established if (a) the defendant’s action did not violate clearly established law, or (b) it was objectively reasonable for the defendant to believe that his action did not violate … Since the principle that a warrantless arrest without probable cause violates the Fourth Amendment was clearly established prior to Katz’s arrest of Kent in 1996, Katz may be found entitled to qualified immunity only if he