Case 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.

Anthony Novak v. City of Parma, Ohio

33 F.4th 296 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 29, 2022

Qualified immunity protects state officers against section 1983 claims unless (1) “they violated a federal statutory or constitutional right, and (2) the unlawfulness of their conduct was clearly established at the time” … So to prevail on his claim, Novak must show it was clearly established that the officers lacked probable cause to arrest him. Because he hasn’t done so, the officers are entitled to qualified immunity.

David A. Connelly v. Comptroller of the Currency

876 F.2d 1209 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jul 7, 1989

We must address in turn whether any of these claims rests upon such clearly established law that the defendants have forfeited their qualified immunity from suit. … established as to abrogate the defendants’ qualified immunity.

Forbes v. Township of Lower Merion

313 F.3d 144 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Dec 11, 2002

For instance, we may "review whether the set of facts identified by the district court is sufficient to establish a violation of a clearly established constitutional right," but we may not "consider whether the district court … a violation of a clearly established constitutional right," Ziccardi, 288 F.3d at 61 , but based on the District Court's spare comments in denying the defendants' summary-judgment motion, we are hard pressed to carry out

Viilo v. Eyre

547 F.3d 707 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Oct 27, 2008

Qualified immunity protects government officials from liability for civil damages if their actions did not violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … immunity, and (2) the issue appealed concerned not which facts the parties might be able to prove, but rather whether or not those facts showed a violation of clearly established law.

Walters v. Grossheim

990 F.2d 381 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Apr 1, 1993

they violated a clearly established constitutional right. … That finding is not clearly erroneous.

Edward Chevallier v. Deputy Sheriff Joel Hand

722 F.3d 1101 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jul 18, 2013

In response, Deputies Hand and Floyd asserted qualified immunity. … Deputy Hand argues that such a requirement was not clearly established at the time of Chevallier's arrest.

McEvoy v. Spencer

124 F.3d 92 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Aug 11, 1997

Qualified Immunity The defense of qualified immunity shields government agents “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a … A defendant pleading qualified immunity on a motion to dismiss is entitled to prevail if the allegations in the complaint fail to “state a claim of violation of clearly established law.” Behrens v.

John Witherow v. Lea Baker

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · May 18, 2021

not clearly established. … B In considering what constitutes “clearly established” law for purposes of qualified immunity, the Supreme Court has taken a narrow approach.

Stanley v. Gallegos

852 F.3d 1210 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Mar 17, 2017

. § 1291 , the panel reverses and remands to the district court for farther consideration of whether Defendant violated clearly established federal law or is instead entitled to qualified immunity. I. … The Court reiterated that qualified immunity may be overcome “only by showing that [the federal rights in question] were clearly established at the time of the conduct at issue.” Id. at 197, 104 S.Ct. 3012 .

Chism v. Washington State

661 F.3d 380 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Aug 25, 2011

We also conclude that the officers are not entitled to qualified immunity because the Chisms’ right to not be searched and arrested as a result of judicial deception was clearly established at the time Gardner prepared and … Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity shields the officers from liability “insofar as their conduct d[id] not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”

Lana Canen v. Dennis Chapman

847 F.3d 407 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jan 27, 2017

Detective Chapman’s failure to disclose that he was not trained as a latent print examiner cannot be characterized as a violation of any clearly established right, and, accordingly, the doctrine of qualified immunity protects … provide the defense with clearly exculpatory information, the officer could not claim qualified immunity.

DeBoer v. Pennington

206 F.3d 857 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Mar 17, 2000

If the right is not clearly established, the individual defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. See Thompson v. Souza, 111 F.3d 694, 698 (9th Cir.1997). … Clearly Established Law Having identified the right at issue, we must determine whether it was clearly established before January 31, 1995.

Martha Stringer v. County of Bucks

141 F.4th 76 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jun 18, 2025

established, as required for qualified immunity. … Stringer’s clearly established constitutional rights.” Opening Br. 25, 28 (emphasis added). But that conflates the two prongs of qualified immunity.

Warren Bass v. Thomas A. Coughlin, Iii, Raymond Broaddus, Earl D. Moore, James J. Plescia, Gloria Butler-Conrad, and John Glasheen

976 F.2d 98 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Sep 24, 1992

McAvoy, Judge, denying their motion for summary judgment on the ground of qualified immunity in connection with their rejection of requests in 1989 and 1990 by plaintiff Warren Bass, a prisoner, for meals prepared in accordance … At least as early as 1975, it was established that prison officials must provide a prisoner a diet that is consistent with his religious scruples. See Kahane v. Carlson, 527 F.2d 492 (2d Cir.1975).

Thomas v. Roberts

323 F.3d 950 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Mar 10, 2003

The "clear" requirement stems from the fact that the purpose of qualified immunity is to protect government officials performing discretionary functions from civil liability when their actions violate no "clearly established … Plaintiffs insist that "consensus or persuasive authority" from other circuits may create clearly established law.

Jolene Waldron v. Gregory Spicher

954 F.3d 1297 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Mar 25, 2020

ANALYSIS “Qualified immunity protects government officials from liability for civil damages unless they violate a statutory or constitutional right that was clearly established at the time the alleged violation took … The district court denied the deputy’s invocation of qualified immunity, and we reversed.

Shinault v. Hawks

782 F.3d 1053 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jan 22, 2015

Yet, we ultimately affirm on the basis of qualified immunity because the constitutional obligation was not clearly established at the time of the conduct. 1 FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY Lester Shinault was incarcerated … the right was not clearly established at the time of conduct.

McFarland v. Childers

212 F.3d 1178 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · May 10, 2000

“Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, ‘government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … The question of whether a rule of law is clearly established for qualified immunity purposes is a legal one for this court to determine by examining applicable precedent rather than the experience of individual officers.

Helen J. Guercio v. George Brody (88-2013) and John Feikens (89-1137)

911 F.2d 1179 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 13, 1990

[was] clearly established law at the time of Ms. Guercio’s firing.” … “[Defendants] have qualified immunity unless plaintiffs’ ‘rights were so clearly established when the acts were committed that any officer in the defendant’s position, measured objectively, would have clearly understood that