Case law

Habhab v. Hon

536 F.3d 963 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Aug 7, 2008

The district court also correctly found the state defendants were entitled *969 to qualified immunity. … “In addressing an officer’s claimed entitlement to qualified immunity, the court must first determine whether the allegations amount to a constitutional violation, and then, whether that right was clearly established.”

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.

Shames v. California Travel & Tourism Commission

626 F.3d 1079 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jun 8, 2010

We held that the companies’ actions did not qualify for state action immunity because the OPUC “did not specifically and clearly authorize[ ] by the relevant statutory process” their anticompetitive conduct. … Thus, any claim of col- lusion or conspiracy between the CTTC and the passenger rental car companies would not defeat immunity, so long as the CTTC otherwise qualifies for state action immunity.

Seamons v. Snow

84 F.3d 1226 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · May 8, 1996

Based on our reading of the complaint, resolving all reasonable inferences in Brian's favor, we conclude that the district court was premature in granting qualified immunity to Defendants. 37 The doctrine of qualified immunity … "Ordinarily, in order for the law to be clearly established, there must be a Supreme Court or Tenth Circuit decision on point, or the clearly established weight of authority from other courts must have found the law to be

Randall v. United States

30 F.3d 518 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Jul 26, 1994

Further, defendants argued that the individual defendants enjoyed qualified immunity for three separate reasons: (1) Randall failed to make out a constitutional violation, (2) superior officers enjoy immunity from suit from … Once a defendant has pleaded qualified immunity from suit, the courts should, at the pleading stage, clearly determine whether the plaintiff had an existing constitutional right at the time the defendant acted.

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

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.”

Caceres v. Port Authority of New York & New Jersey

631 F.3d 620 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jan 31, 2011

Stonack, 141 N.J. 101, 117 , 661 A.2d 231 (1995) (“When liability is established under the [NJTCA], it is still subject to immunity specified in the Act as well as any common-law immunity which predated the Ad.” … We therefore need not decide what New Jersey law would be if it were clear, which it is not. 4 Sangiorgi is entitled to qualified immunity on the state law false arrest claim for the same reasons he enjoys qualified immunity

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.

Efrem Zembalis Toney v. James M. Davis

23 F.3d 408 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 20, 1994

Davis filed a motion for summary judgment, which he amended to include the defense of qualified immunity, arguing that the alleged conduct did not violate clearly established law at the time of the events in controversy. … We limit our discussion to the question of qualified immunity. 5 The standard for qualified immunity is that a defendant, acting under color of office, is immune from liability unless he violated clearly establish constitutional

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.

Sally Ness v. City of Bloomington

11 F.4th 914 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Sep 2, 2021

The district court dismissed the claim on the ground that the officers are entitled to qualified immunity. … When defendants assert that they are entitled to qualified immunity from a civil damages suit brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the plaintiff must show that the defendants violated a constitutional right that was “clearly established

Keith Forsyth v. Richard G. Kleindienst, Individually and as Attorney General of the United States, L. Patrick Gray, 3rd, Individually and as Acting Director, Federal Bureau of Investigation, John N. Mitchell, Individually and as Former Attorney General of the United States, John Doe and Richard Roe, Albert Cooper and David Porter. Appeal of John N. Mitchell, E. Davis Porter, and Albert Cooper. Katherine W. Burkhart, Judith Chomsky, Eva Gold, Dina Portnoy, Candy Putter, Joshua (Josh) Markel v. William Saxbe, Individually and as Attorney General of the United States, Clarence Kelley, Director, Federal Bureau of Investigation, John N. Mitchell, Individually and as Former Attorney General of the United States, John Doe, and Richard Roe, Appeal of John N. Mitchell, Clarence Kelley, and William Saxbe

599 F.2d 1203 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · May 22, 1979

If he can establish that the law was unsettled, and that he acted without malice, he will prevail on his claim of qualified immunity. See Wood v. … They do not claim a common law immunity from suit. Indeed, they concede the well established rule that federal law enforcement officers are entitled only to qualified, or good faith, immunity.

Theresa Mason-Funk v. City of Neenah

Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jul 10, 2018

Even  if  the  officers  had  used  unreasonable  force,  the  court concluded they were entitled to qualified immunity because the  officers  did  not  violate  a  clearly  established  right.  Id.  at 1016–22.  … The officers did not violate a clearly established right and they are entitled to qualified immunity.  III.  

Theresa Mason-Funk v. City of Neenah

Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jul 10, 2018

Even  if  the  officers  had  used  unreasonable  force,  the  court concluded they were entitled to qualified immunity because the  officers  did  not  violate  a  clearly  established  right.  Id.  at 1016–22.  … The officers did not violate a clearly established right and they are entitled to qualified immunity.  III.  

Calvin G. Wright Jack Critchfield Desert Forest Products, Inc., D/B/A Hutchinson, Carter Company v. U.S. Postal Service

29 F.3d 1426 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jul 18, 1994

As a general matter, therefore, sovereign immunity does not shield the USPS from the subcontractors’ actions to establish and foreclose equitable liens. See Pearlman v. Reliance Ins. … If a qualifying contractor fails to pay a subcontractor, the subcontractor may sue the surety to recover under the bond. Id. § 270b.

Gutteridge v. State of Oklahoma

878 F.3d 1233 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jan 3, 2018

Malcom, 755 F.3d 870, 877 (10th Cir. 2014). 4  “The doctrine of qualified immunity shields officials from civil liability so long as their conduct ‘does not violate clearly … Second, the plaintiff must demonstrate “that the right was clearly established at the time of the alleged unlawful activity.” Id.

Scott v. Clay Cnty TN

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Mar 1, 2000

established right at the time anchored in qualified immunity, for Fed. … Patricia with excessive force and violated Plaintiff’s clearly established rights.