Case law

Benfer v. City of Baytown

120 F.4th 1272 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Nov 1, 2024

“These standards are the same when a motion to dismiss is based on qualified immunity.” Id. at 279–80 (citation omitted). … Thus, “[i]t is the plain- tiff’s burden to demonstrate that qualified immunity is inappropriate.” Id.

Lincoln v. Hanshaw

375 F. App'x 185 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Mar 22, 2010

right violated was not clearly established at time of the violation. … Thus, plaintiffs have not shown that a constitutional violation occurred, much less that the right assertedly violated was clearly established, sufficient to defeat qualified immunity.

Clyde M. Lawson v. Andrew Hulm

Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Aug 18, 2000

We conclude that the Troopers were entitled to qualified immunity in this case. … alleged right is clearly established; and (3) raise[d] a genuine issue of fact as to whether the official would have known that his alleged conduct would have violated the plaintiff's clearly established right."

Carter v. City of Yonkers

345 F. App'x 605 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Aug 13, 2009

Appellants first contend that they were entitled to qualified immunity with respect to their stop and search of Appellees. … The law in this regard was clearly established and it was not objectively reasonable for Appellants to conclude otherwise.

Bruno Mpoy v. Michelle Rhee

758 F.3d 285 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jul 15, 2014

“Under [qualified immunity] doctrine, courts may not award damages against a government official in his personal capacity unless ‘the official violated a statutory or constitutional right,’ and ‘the right was “clearly established … The question under the qualified immunity doctrine is whether the official violated a right that was “clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct,” and thus whether the defendants “could reasonably have believed

Meyer v. Fidelity Savings

944 F.2d 562 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Sep 13, 1991

The issue of qualified immunity should not have been submitted to the jury because Pattullo violated no clearly established law. See Schwartzman v. … Valenzuela, 846 F.2d 1209, 1211 (9th Cir.1988) (question of clearly established right is question of law). Thus, any error in the qualified immunity instruction was harmless.

Municipal Utilities Bd. of Albertville v. Alabama Power Co.

934 F.2d 1493 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jul 5, 1991

The Cities contend that the defendants' actions do not qualify for state action immunity for two reasons. … We therefore cannot determine whether the private agreements qualify for state action immunity.

Scott v. Miami Dade County

657 F. App'x 877 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 1, 2016

“Qualified immunity protects government officials performing discretionary functions from suits in their individual capacities unless their conduct violates ‘clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … Clearly Established Constitutional Right Because Plaintiff’s second amended complaint sufficiently alleges a constitutional violation, “we next determine whether preexisting law clearly established that [] [D]efendants

Mahdi v. Salt Lake Police Department

54 F.4th 1232 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Dec 5, 2022

Qualified Immunity The three officers raised the defense of qualified immunity. … “The doctrine of 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

Tapp v. Banks

1 F. App'x 344 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jan 10, 2001

“The key inquiry in analyzing a claim for qualified immunity is whether the defendant’s alleged conduct violated clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … Thus, in order to defeat a qualified immunity defense, the plaintiff must (1) allege that a violation of a clearly established law occurred and (2) present sufficient evidence to create a genuine issue as to whether the defendant

Evans v. City of New York

123 F. App'x 433 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Feb 11, 2005

most favorable to the Plaintiff, could conclude that the defendant’s actions were objectively unreasonable in light of clearly established law.” … conclude that defendants actions “were objectively unreasonable in light of clearly established law.”

Baranski v. Fifteen Unknown Agents of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms

452 F.3d 433 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 3, 2006

A government official is not entitled to qualified immunity if the plaintiff alleges facts that, if true, establish that the official violated the plaintiff's clearly established federal rights. Saucier v. … Groh in contrast contains a qualified immunity analysis and thus applied law clearly established at the time of the search. 3 See also FED. R. CRIM.

Hudson v. New York City

271 F.3d 62 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Aug 6, 2000

The court denied, however, a motion for summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds brought by officers Musmacher and Rooney. … Dist., 239 F.3d 246 , 2'50 (2d Cir.2001) ("A government actor performing a discretionary task is entitled to immunity from § 1983 suits if either (a) the defendant’s action did not violate clearly established law, or (b)

John Sherwin Diercks v. Lynda Durham, Lynda Musgrove James Wilde

959 F.2d 710 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Mar 23, 1992

Durham first argues that she is entitled to qualified immunity. We reject this argument. … A defendant is not entitled to qualified immunity if: (1) her conduct violated a constitutional right clearly established before the conduct occurred; (2) she knew or should have known of the clearly established right when

Best v. District of Columbia

291 U.S. 411 · Supreme Court of the United States · Mar 5, 1934

There is no question as to the power of the trial court to direct a verdict for the defendant upon the opening statement of plaintiff’s counsel where that statement establishes that the plaintiff has no right to recover. … To warrant the court in directing a verdict for defendant upon that statement, it is not enough that the statement be lacking in definiteness but it must clearly appear, after resolving all doubts in plaintiff’s favor, that

Brennan v. Stewart

834 F.2d 1248 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jan 7, 1988

Brennan’s federal rights, and that even if they had, they were entitled to qualified immunity because they had not violated any clearly established rights. Mr. … The suit was clearly against the state and not against its officials in their individual capacities: the court made no mention of qualified immunity, the customary burning issue in individual capacity cases; and the plaintiff

James Newsome v. Helen McCabe (As Personal Representative of the Estate of John McCabe Raymond McNally and City of Chicago

319 F.3d 301 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Feb 10, 2003

Claims of qualified immunity neither require nor authorize de novo appellate review of the evidence. … Saucier made the existence of a constitutional tort the initial inquiry because it’s pointless to decide whether the impropriety of a public actor’s conduct was clearly established at the time the conduct occurred, if the

Stufflebeam v. Harris

521 F.3d 884 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Apr 4, 2008

Harris also urges us to affirm the dismissal on the alternative ground of qualified immunity, an issue the district court did not address. … Qualified immunity protects public 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

Youth 71five Ministries v. Williams

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Aug 18, 2025

The panel affirmed the district court’s dismissal of 71Five’s claims for damages because 71Five did not allege any violation of a clearly established right, and therefore defendants were entitled to qualified immunity. … Because 71Five does not allege any violation of a clearly established right, we also hold that the Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity and affirm the dismissal of 71Five’s claims for damages.

Raju v. Rhodes

7 F.3d 1210 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Nov 24, 1993

Qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions from civil damages liability if their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … Rhodes did nothing to forfeit his qualified immunity. See Grantham v.