Case law

Hernan Gaztambide-Barbosa v. Jaime Torres-Gaztambide, Etc.

902 F.2d 112 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Apr 20, 1990

They pointed out that the law entitles them to assert “qualified immunity” — an immunity from suit for damages— unless they violated “rights” that “were clearly established at the time of the conduct at issue.” Davis v. … The district court held to the contrary, and the defendants now bring an “interlocutory appeal” from its denial of “qualified immunity.” See Mitchell v.

Tyler Land v. Sheriff of Jackson County Florida

85 F.4th 1121 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Oct 31, 2023

Public officials acting within their discretionary authority enjoy qualified immunity from “civil damages when their conduct does not violate a constitutional right that was clearly established at … The absence of a constitutional violation ends the analy- sis of qualified immunity. See Pearson v.

John Doe v. County Of Centre

242 F.3d 437 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Mar 5, 2001

The District Court also held that the individual CYS officials were entitled to qualified immunity because any right the Does had was not clearly established, and, further, that County government entities were immune from … The District Court agreed, holding that qualified immunity applied because the Does failed to show that the individual officials' conduct violated rights clearly established at the time the conduct occurred.

Sarah Patterson v. James Van Arsdel

883 F.3d 826 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Feb 23, 2018

The general presumption is that qualified immunity provides sufficient protection to officials. Burns v. Reed, 500 U.S. 478, 486–87 (1991). … See, e.g., Burns, 500 U.S. at 493 (qualified immunity for giving legal advice to police officers); Kalina, 522 U.S. at 130–31 (qualified immunity for attesting to facts in support of a search warrant).

Bethesda Lutheran Homes and Services, Inc., Plaintiffs-Appellants/cross-Appellees v. Gerald Born, and Thomas Schleitwiler

238 F.3d 853 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jan 25, 2001

The district court dismissed the new suit primarily on the ground that the defendants were entitled to a qualified (that is, good-faith) immunity from a suit for damages, as no rule of law that was clearly established when … immunity.

Carter Ex Rel. Caleb O. v. Lindgren

502 F.3d 26 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Sep 7, 2007

If so, we then ask “whether the right was clearly established” at the time of the violation. Suboh, 298 F.3d at 90. … This court previously has acknowledged “Rhode Island's recognition of a qualified immunity defense under state law analogous to the federal doctrine established by the United States Supreme Court.” Hatch v.

Walton v. City of Verona

82 F.4th 314 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Sep 13, 2023

And while we may review the denial of claims of qualified immunity under the collateral-order doctrine, the doctrine does not encompass orders granting qualified immunity. … Elizondo, 671 F.3d at 509 (noting that denials of qualified immunity are immediately appealable but “the same does not hold for an order granting qualified immunity”).

Mawhirt v. Ahmed

8 F. App'x 125 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · May 17, 2001

However, the officers were entitled to qualified immunity because they acted reasonably and did not violate any of Mawhirt’s clearly established rights when bringing him to UHSB. … immunity.

Fontenot v. Cormier

56 F.3d 669 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jun 20, 1995

The examination of a claim of qualified immunity is a two-step inquiry. First, a court must determine whether plaintiff has alleged a violation of a clearly established right. See Siegert v. … The deputies are therefore entitled to qualified immunity for their actions against Brandenburg.

Donald Bennett v. City of Eastpointe

410 F.3d 810 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 8, 2005

conduct violated clearly established constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … Aey, this Court wrote: Qualified immunity involves a three-step inquiry.

Bradley v. Fisher

80 U.S. 335 · Supreme Court of the United States · Apr 18, 1872

The court below, therefore, did not err in excluding the order of removal as evidence in the cause, for the obvious reason that it did not establish, nor tend to establish, the removal of the plaintiff' by any order of the … Where there is clearly no jurisdiction over *352 the subject-matter any authority exercised is a usurped authority, and for the exercise of such authority, when the want of jurisdiction is known to the judge, no excuse is

Jones v. Cincinnati

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 4, 2008

Police enjoy qualified immunity unless (1) the facts alleged show that the police violated a constitutional right; and (2) the right was clearly established. Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194, 201 (2001). … Page 4 established over three years before Jones died. See id at 902-03. Therefore, the officers who subdued Jones are not entitled to qualified immunity on the excessive force claim.

Kenyon v. Edwards

503 F.3d 722 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · May 1, 2007

If the answer is no, [the court grants] qualified immunity. If the answer is yes, [the court goes] on to determine “whether the right was clearly established.” Id. … This is so because “[w]hether an official is entitled to qualified immunity depends upon the ‘objective legal reasonableness’ of the official’s actions ‘assessed in light of the legal rules that were “clearly established”

Crystal Rice v. Scott Adams

Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Apr 14, 2026

Jurisdiction over the qualified-immunity question gives us pendent appellate jurisdiction over overlapping issues, Rowland v. … that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was ‘clearly established’ at the time of the challenged conduct.”

Heather Burton v. Patricia Richmond

Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jan 11, 2002

The Defendants have argued that qualified immunity bars the entirety of this lawsuit; specifically, contending at the time of the placement in 1985, the law was not clearly established that state caseworkers had a duty to … The Defendants ask this Court to reverse the district court’s denial of qualified immunity and dismiss this action.

SMILEDIRECTCLUB, LLC v. Tanja D. Battle

4 F.4th 1274 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jul 20, 2021

Pelletier, 516 U.S. 299, 309 (1996) (explaining that a motion to dismiss on qualified immunity grounds takes the defendant’s conduct as alleged in the complaint, while a motion for summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds … Comm’n, 514 U.S. 35, 42 (1995) (explaining that the denial of qualified immunity is immediately appealable because qualified immunity is “an immunity from suit rather than a mere defense to liability” (internal quotation

De Litta v. Village of Mamaroneck

166 F. App'x 497 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Dec 28, 2005

We affirm the district court’s denial of qualified immunity with respect to the plaintiffs other claims. … that he enjoys qualified immunity with respect to the retaliation claim.

Derek Antol v. Robert English

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 13, 2026

Clearly Established Law Though Plaintiff has alleged a constitutional rights violation, he must still show that his right to use a restroom upon his urgent request while detained was clearly established at the time … As discussed, “[a] right is clearly established for purposes of overcoming the qualified immunity defense only when ‘existing precedent [has] placed the statutory or constitutional question beyond debate,’ although we do

Drendolyn Sims v. Mike Stanton

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jan 16, 2013

Qualified Immunity In a claim for civil damages under § 1983, to avoid the bar of qualified immunity, the plaintiff must show that the officer violated a constitutional right and that the right was “clearly established … That Welsh leaves open the possibility for a “rare” exception to this rule does not mean that the rule was not clearly established at the time and does not change our qualified immunity analysis.

Randall R. Bradford v. Mike Huckabee

394 F.3d 1012 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jan 10, 2005

the qualified immunity issue. … Discussion Qualified immunity protects public officials from § 1983 damage actions if “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have