Case law

Ramirez v. City of Buena Park

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Mar 25, 2009

BUENA PARK 3807 established, there is no necessity for further inquiries concern- ing qualified immunity.” Saucier, 533 U.S. at 201. … Under Saucier’s second prong, we ask “whether the right was clearly established.” Id.

Vanessa Chavero-Linares v. Timothy Smith

782 F.3d 1038 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Apr 13, 2015

Alternatively, the court correctly found that Donnelly and Beadle were entitled to qualified immunity because Chavero-Linares fails to establish that they violated her constitutional rights. … “Qualified immunity shields a public official from suit for civil damages when his conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”

Cortez v. Mccauley

438 F.3d 980 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Feb 10, 2006

the defendant qualified immunity "if prior decisions did not clearly establish that the use of that force in those circumstances was constitutionally excessive." … Cortez's clearly established constitutional right to be free from excessive force. 88 In order to overcome the defendants' claim of qualified immunity, Mr. and Ms.

Marcia Harding, in Her Official Capacity as Acting Associate Director, Special Education and Individually Mike Crowley, in His Official Capacity as Administrator for Special Education Monitoring and Technical Assistance and Individually, Williford School District 39, Its Superintendent and Board, Respectively Bruce Evans, in His Official and Individual Capacities Clinton Madison, in His Official and Individual Capacities Rodney Despain, in His Official and Individual Capacities Jeff Goings, in His Official and Individual Capacities Don Coggins, in His Official and Individual Capacities Eddie Gray, in His Official and Individual Capacities

301 F.3d 952 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Aug 30, 2002

"If no ... right would have been violated were the allegations established, there is no necessity for further inquiries concerning qualified immunity." Id. … In other words, "[i]f the law did not put [the defendant] on notice that his conduct would be clearly unlawful, summary judgment based on qualified immunity is appropriate." Saucier v.

Anthony Brown v. Rodney Strain, Jr.

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Nov 30, 2011

Qualified Immunity “The doctrine of qualified immunity protects public officials from liability for civil damages ‘insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of … was ‘clearly established’ at the time of the defendant’s alleged misconduct.”

Sammye R. Holloway v. State of Ohio Ohio Department of Human Services Sally Brush Clermont County, Ohio

179 F.3d 431 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 3, 1999

"[T]he actions of a prosecutor are not absolutely immune merely because they are performed by a prosecutor. Qualified immunity represents the norm.... … Even if such motivations could legitimate Brush's actions, it would be through qualified immunity, not absolute immunity, and she has not claimed qualified immunity.

Bryan v. MacPherson

608 F.3d 614 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jun 18, 2010

Did Officer MacPherson Violate Bryan’s Clearly Established Rights? … Two other panels have recently, in cases involving different circumstances, concluded that the law regarding tasers is not sufficiently clearly established to warrant denying officers qualified immunity. Mattos v.

Field Day, Llc v. County Of Suffolk

463 F.3d 167 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Sep 12, 2006

clearly established constitutional right. … an entitlement to qualified immunity. 2.

Nicole Schneyder v. Gina Smith

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jul 29, 2011

III “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 … There are two related but distinct inquiries in a qualified immunity case.

Nicole Schneyder v. Gina Smith

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jul 29, 2011

III “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 … There are two related but distinct inquiries in a qualified immunity case.

Ronald Olson v. Champaign County, Illinois

784 F.3d 1093 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Apr 30, 2015

At  this  stage  of  the proceedings,  Sherrick and Shaw are not  entitled  to qualified immunity, and Ziegler is not entitled to absolute  immunity or qualified immunity.  A. … Fitzgerald,  457  U.S.  800,  818–19  (1982)  (holding  that  officials  who  act  objectively  reasonably,  by  reference  to  clearly  established  law,  are  entitled  to  quali‐ fied immunity). 

Gilles v. Davis

427 F.3d 197 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Oct 25, 2005

At issue in this First Amendment suit is whether the arresting officers are entitled to qualified immunity. … , permitting a reasonable mistake without resulting individual liability of the officer, when the law is not clearly established.”) 2.

Wilson v. Layne

Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Jul 30, 1997

Furthermore, the district court refused to accept the officers' alternative argument that, at a minimum, they were enti- tled to qualified immunity because in April 1992, the law was not clearly established that permitting … Government officials performing discretionary functions are enti- tled to qualified immunity from liability for civil damages to the extent that "their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional

Ward v. Gates

52 F. App'x 341 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Nov 26, 2002

immunity against money damages unless a reasonable officer would have known that they violated clearly established law. … Qualified immunity “requires a two-part analysis: 1) Was the law governing the official’s conduct clearly established? 2) Under that law, could a reasonable officer have believed the conduct was lawful?” Act Up!

Comanche Nation v. Ware

Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Apr 21, 2026

But an order that implicitly denies tribal immunity qualifies, too. … Qualified immunity, of course, is not tribal immunity, so the court’s denial of tribal immunity does not encompass a denial of the Officials’ qualified immunity.

Stivers v. Pierce

71 F.3d 732 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Dec 1, 1995

The qualified immunity doctrine shields government officials from liability, if “a reasonable government official could have believed that his conduct was lawful, in light of clearly established law and the information he … If the law prohibiting the conduct was clearly established and a reasonable official could not have believed his conduct lawful, then the official is not immune.

Way v. County of Venture

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Apr 19, 2006

It denied qualified immunity to Brooks and Hanson on the basis of Giles v. … I therefore concur with the majority in finding that the officers are entitled to qualified immunity.

Montville v. Lewis

87 F.3d 900 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Aug 6, 1996

Cabrera, 58 F.3d 290, 292 (7th Cir.1995), and, finding that the defendants' conduct did not violate "clearly established law" and thus was shielded by qualified immunity, we reverse. … In light of our conclusion that qualified immunity was proper as to the September search, it necessarily follows that using information gained during that inspection was reasonable and did not violate clearly established

Anderson v. Ohio State University

26 F. App'x 412 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Dec 5, 2001

The district court properly determined that the defendants were entitled to qualified immunity. Yates v. City of Cleveland, 941 F.2d 444, 446 (6th Cir.1991). … In general, government officials are entitled to qualified immunity when performing discretionary functions as long as the conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable

Edward James Miller v. Robert Schoenen

Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Feb 15, 1996

As we discussed in Reece, however, the qualified-immunity question -3- involves more than merely determining whether the law governing a plaintiff's claim is "clearly established." … That is the "clearly established" law.