Case law

O'Connor v. Terhune

32 F. App'x 314 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Mar 4, 2002

We reverse and remand with instructions to enter judgment for the defendants dismissing this case on the ground of qualified immunity. We review the denial of qualified immunity de novo. Branch v. … Nowhere is it clearly established that a prisoner may not be moved from a lesser classification to a higher classification because of some abstract increase in danger.

Los Angeles Police Protective League v. Gates

907 F.2d 879 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jul 3, 1990

Had the former been clearly established, then the latter probably would not have sufficed to protect the appellants from liability. … Of course, the fact that the individual appellants are entitled to qualified immunity does not demonstrate that the City itself is not liable for the violation. Cities are not entitled to qualified immunity.

James Terrell v. Brek Larson

396 F.3d 975 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Feb 4, 2005

Clearly Established Right. Deputy Larson would enjoy qualified immunity if Terrell’s substantive due process right was not clearly established as of December 29, 2000, the time of the collision. See Wilson v. … Thus, we conclude the law in effect at the time of the collision was clearly established. Accordingly, we would hold that Larson was not entitled to summary judgment based on qualified immunity. III.

United States v. Leonard

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Feb 11, 2026

Echoing Justice Story nearly a century hence, the Court explained that the evidence was “clearly competent as tending to establish the guilt of the accused.” Adams, 192 U.S. at 594. So the Government could introduce it. … I would require criminal defendants to show that the officer who illegally discovered the information used to obtain a warrant violated clearly established law.

Mink v. Suthers

482 F.3d 1244 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Apr 16, 2007

to allow police officers only qualified immunity for following [that] advice.” … cases to the criminal libel statute was not clearly established under the circumstances here.

Daniel Ellsberg v. John N. Mitchell

807 F.2d 204 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Dec 5, 1986

Defendants claim that qualified immunity shields them from liability since the wiretap, having had a validating national security purpose did not violate clearly established law. … Later, also despite Young’s pending discovery motions, the District Court granted summary judgment to Mitchell on qualified immunity grounds against Young, finding that the “objective record thus establishes a valid [national

Melissa Abdouch v. Vicki Burger

426 F.3d 982 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Oct 20, 2005

Qualified immunity protects public officials unless their conduct violates clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. Littrell v. … right; and second, whether, in the specific context of the case, the right was clearly established.”

Robert Allen Jordan v. John Doe, Chief U.S. Marshal, David Adkins, Lydia Blakey, Joseph Enders, John Hardman, Augustus Lawson and Ivar Swanson, Robert Allen Jordan v. John Doe, U.S. Marshal, Deputy U.S. Marshal, United States of America, David Adkins, Lydia Blakey, Joseph Enders, John Hardman, Ivar Swanson, Augustus Lawson

38 F.3d 1559 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Dec 2, 1994

Fitzgerald and its Progeny 19 The Supreme Court established the test for qualified immunity in Harlow v. … 'violated clearly established constitutional law' " under Harlow.

David Kasiah v. Gilbert Carter

915 F.3d 1179 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Feb 14, 2019

Relevant to this appeal, the district court concluded that Carter: (1) did not use excessive force in violation of clearly established constitutional law; and (2) was immune from the state- law tort claims under the doctrine … See Church, 898 F.3d at 832 (explaining that the burden of showing the violation of a clearly established right for qualified immunity purposes is on the plaintiff).

Weaver v. Shadoan

340 F.3d 398 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Nov 25, 2003

If a violation could be established, the second prong requires an examination of whether "the right was clearly established" at the time of the events at issue. Id. … Because Plaintiff did not satisfy the first prong of the qualified immunity analysis, we need not address whether the right was clearly established.

Frierson v. Goetz

99 F. App'x 649 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · May 19, 2004

We have used a three-part test to determine whether an official is entitled to qualified immunity. … known that his actions violated clearly established rights.

Michael Faulk v. Gerald Leyshock

Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Apr 6, 2022

seizure; if so, whether it would violate “clearly established” rights for purposes of qualified immunity; and whether the officers warrant qualified immunity because they had arguable probable cause to arrest Faulk and the … On appeal, the other individual defendants argue they are entitled to qualified immunity from Count V because the applicability of the intracorporate conspiracy doctrine was not clearly established.

Lindsey M. Scott v. Larry Dixon

720 F.2d 1542 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Dec 15, 1983

Kelley and Latham Police officers do not enjoy absolute immunity from civil liability for § 1983 violations. Instead, they acquire a qualified immunity only for the good faith performance of their duties. Pierson v. … Officials “are shielded 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.” 457 U.S. at 818, 102

Brocuglio v. Proulx

67 F. App'x 58 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jun 13, 2003

A district court’s denial of a claim of qualified immunity is immediately appeal-able only “to the extent that it turns on an issue of law,” Mitchell v. … At the time of the events giving rise to this action, it was clearly established that the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement applies to administrative searches such as this, see *61 Michigan v.

Ross v. Lichtenfeld

693 F.3d 300 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Sep 10, 2012

In general, qualified immunity shields “government 10 officials performing discretionary functions . . . from liability 11 for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate 12 clearly established statutory … The qualified immunity inquiry can turn on 15 either of two questions: whether the complaint alleges the 16 deprivation of an actual constitutional right, or whether the 17 right was clearly established at the

George Segarra v. M.J. McDade Ralph Edwards

706 F.2d 1301 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Apr 26, 1983

Qualified immunity from liability for civil damages will arise unless the official’s conduct “violate[s] clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” 690 F.2d at 1111 … Although Judge Russell discussed qualified immunity, he clearly stated the immunity was absolute. 690 F.2d at 1099, 1110-1114 .

67 Fair empl.prac.cas. (Bna) 1005, 66 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 43,456 Alice H. Smith v. Michael Lomax, Individually and in His Official Capacity as Chairman of the Fulton County Board of Commissioners and Michael Hightower, Individually and in His Official Capacity as Commissioner of Fulton County

45 F.3d 402 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Feb 22, 1995

Then we ask, on the issue of qualified immunity, whether precedent clearly established that such conduct violated the Equal Protection Clause On the legislative immunity issue, the parties' rendition of the material facts … of a clearly established property right.

Salcido v. City of Las Vegas

Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Mar 17, 2026

On appeal, plaintiffs argue that defendants’ inaction during the standoff (1) violated Cristal’s clearly established due-process rights, so defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity under § 1983, and (2) breached … To defeat an assertion of qualified immunity, a plaintiff must show “‘(1) a violation of a constitutional right (2) that was clearly established’ at the time of the violation.” Est. of Redd v.

Magda L. Marin-Piazza v. Awilda Aponte-Roque

873 F.2d 432 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Apr 26, 1989

defendant’s claim of qualified immunity. … ” Whether or not, however, we are wrong in our reading of these statutes, Puerto Rico has not clearly waived its eleventh amendment immunity from suit in the federal district court, and therefore damages under 29 L.P.R.A.

Cooper v. Dupnik

963 F.2d 1220 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · May 5, 1992

Qualified immunity protects officials from suits under § 1983 for violations of rights which are not “clearly established at the time of the challenged actions....” Mitchell, 472 U.S. at 528 , 105 S.Ct. at 2816 . … We conclude *1251 that the relevant legal standards were clearly established in 1986, and that the members of the Task Force cannot avail themselves of the doctrine of qualified immunity.