Case law

Hiroko Havekost David W. Sutton Ron Haglund Jerry Crowley v. United States Department of the Navy, and Jovito Banzon

925 F.2d 316 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Feb 1, 1991

Because the facts establish that Banzon’s action did not “violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known,” he has qualified immunity. Harlow v. … Rather, the case turns on a purely legal question: whether Banzon violated clearly established constitutional protections. Accordingly, we exercise jurisdiction over Banzon’s appeal.

Ronnie Lee Hamrick v. Robert Carson Packard Joseph Talley, Sherrye Elizabeth Elliot, and Town of Boiling Springs

57 F.3d 1066 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Jun 9, 1995

The officers' lack of knowledge makes this case clearly distinguishable from Pinder v. Johnson, 33 F.3d 368 (4th Cir.1994), which, in Hamrick's view, supports the district court's denial of qualified immunity. … to believe--that their actions did not violate clearly established law, and thus they are entitled to qualified immunity.

Liston v. County of Riverside

120 F.3d 965 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jul 21, 1997

Executing the warrant Law enforcement officers enjoy qualified immunity from civil damage claims unless their conduct violates “clearly established constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … Determining whether a public official is entitled to qualified immunity “requires a two-part inquiry: (1) Was the law governing the state official’s conduct clearly established?

The Antelope

23 U.S. 66 · Supreme Court of the United States · Mar 15, 1825

Melvin Folkerts v. City of Waverly

707 F.3d 975 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Feb 25, 2013

Schneider asserts qualified immunity. … Qualified immunity protects government officials “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known

Hutsell v. Sayre

5 F.3d 996 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Sep 29, 1993

Hafer, --- U.S. at ---- - ----, 112 S.Ct. at 362-63 . 28 Defendants may, however, assert the defense of qualified immunity to the extent that their conduct "does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … clearly established at the time in question that a reasonable official in the defendant's position would have known that he was violating the plaintiff's constitutional rights.

Dewey Barnett, II v. Brenda Short

129 F.4th 534 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Feb 26, 2025

"An official sued under § 1983 is entitled to qualified immunity unless it is shown that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right that was clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct." … A right is clearly established when "any reasonable official in the defendant's shoes would have understood that he was violating it." See id. at 778–79.

State of Idaho v. Lon T. Horiuchi

215 F.3d 986 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jun 14, 2000

With regard to Horiuchi’s claim for qualified immunity, this court stated: “[I]t is extremely doubtful ... that Horiuchi will ever be able to establish that he is entitled to qualified immunity for his conduct in shooting … The court also wrote, “[t]he Special Rules violated clearly established law and any reasonable law enforcement officer should have been aware of that fact.” Id. at 1202.

A.D. Bedell Wholesale Company, Inc. v. Philip Morris Incorporated

263 F.3d 239 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jul 11, 2001

Midcal 63 To qualify as state action under the Midcal test, "the challenged restraint must be one 'clearly articulated and affirmatively expressed as state policy.'" 445 U.S. at 104 (quoting City of Lafayette v. La. … Under Noerr-Pennington immunity, the government actions which flow from valid petitioning need not qualify as Parker "state action."

Burchett v. Kiefer

310 F.3d 937 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Nov 19, 2002

The right to be free from "excessively forceful handcuffing" is a clearly established right for qualified immunity purposes, Kostrzewa v. … Pelzer, this right was clearly established for qualified immunity purposes.

Wood v. MCC Superintendant

Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Jul 22, 1996

law became clearly established. … B Plaintiffs can overcome the defendant's assertion of the qualified immunity defense only by showing that Clemons' conduct was objectively unreasonable in light of clearly established law.

Tarantino v. Syputa

270 F. App'x 675 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Mar 20, 2008

Tarantino fails to “specifically and distinctly” controvert the district court’s conclusion that the inapplicability of the ordinance was not clearly established, however, so we affirm the police officers’ entitlement to … qualified immunity.

Zinker v. Doty

907 F.2d 357 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jun 29, 1990

were not clearly established in July of 1984. … immunity where officials operate in an area in which the law has not been charted clearly.

Dague v. Dumesic

286 F. App'x 395 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jul 18, 2008

We review the denial of qualified immunity de novo. See Lee v. … If we determine that a constitutional violation has occurred, we must then determine whether Dague’s rights were clearly established at the time of the violation. Id. In Tennessee v.

Cotnoir v. University of Maine

Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Sep 13, 1994

Qualified Immunity C. … Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions from civil damages "insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of

Norwood v. Bain

143 F.3d 843 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · May 13, 1998

established for purposes of Bain’s qualified immunity defense. … As we have recognized, though there are obvious differences in the methodology and purposes of the two, our review of the "clearly-established” issue in qualified immunity cases and of the "clearly-established” or "new-rule

No. 99-1893, 99-1894

225 F.3d 440 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Aug 29, 2000

for summary judgment based on qualified immunity. … " and was thus entitled to qualified immunity.

Andrews v. City of West Branch, Iowa

454 F.3d 914 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jul 27, 2006

Qualified immunity is applicable if Knight can show that a reasonable officer with the information he possessed at the time of the shooting could have believed that his conduct was lawful in light of the law that was clearly … A right is clearly established if a "reasonable [officer] would understand that what he is doing violates that right." Id. at 640 , 107 S.Ct. 3034 .

Pike v. Osborne

35 F. App'x 70 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · May 9, 2002

Osborne appealed, claiming that he is entitled to qualified immunity either because the plaintiffs failed to allege a constitutional violation or because the law in this area was not clearly established at the time of the … Because the law in this area was not clearly established at the time the plaintiffs were not reappointed, Sheriff Osborne is entitled to qualified immunity.

Heather Ewing v. City of Stockton

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Dec 9, 2009

The Ewings do not establish that the unlawfulness of charging Heather with mur- der on the facts in question was clearly established. See Hope v. … [19] The Supreme Court has clearly stated that with respect to advising police, prosecutors are entitled to qualified not absolute immunity. Burns, 500 U.S. at 492-95.