Case law

Merritt Sharp, III v. County of Orange

871 F.3d 901 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Sep 19, 2017

In its view, the deputies violated clearly established law, thereby precluding qualified immunity, and the district court further held that the asserted state-law immunities were inapplicable as a matter of law and fact. … Qualified immunity is proper unless Plaintiffs establish that (1) the deputies committed a constitutional violation, and (2) the deputies’ specific conduct violated “clearly established” federal law.

Renee Williams v. Dean Mannis

889 F.3d 926 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · May 10, 2018

To determine whether Mannis is entitled to qualified immunity, we ask: (1) whether his conduct violated a constitutional right; and (2) whether the violated right was clearly established. Manning v. … “When a defendant asserts qualified immunity at the summary judgment stage, the plaintiff must produce evidence sufficient to create a genuine issue of fact regarding whether the defendant violated a clearly established right

Allen Quigley v. Tuong Thai

707 F.3d 675 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Feb 21, 2013

Merits of Thai’s qualified-immunity claim The qualified-immunity doctrine shields government officials performing discretionary functions from civil liability unless their conduct violates clearly established rights … The estate has established that Thai violated a constitutional right and that the right was clearly established. Thai is therefore not entitled to qualified immunity. D.

Todd S. Floberg v. Oklahoma Department of Corrections Larry R. Meachum Larry A. Fields Denise Robinson Deborah Robison

962 F.2d 17 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Apr 14, 1992

legal rules that were 'clearly established' at the time [the action] was taken." … See Anderson, 483 U.S. at 640 (test of qualified immunity must be established in a particularized and relevant sense).

Ashly Romero v. City of Lansing, Mich.

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Feb 12, 2026

officer] violated the Fourth Amendment [because the officer] was at least entitled to qualified immunity.”); White, 580 U.S. at 78–81 (addressing only the clearly established prong); Mullenix, 577 U.S. at 11 (“We address … Some of our cases have limited the apparent presumption against qualified immunity to the clearly established prong of qualified immunity. See Hart v. Hillsdale Cnty., 973 F.3d 627, 635 (6th Cir. 2020).

Harris v. O'Hare

770 F.3d 224 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Oct 30, 2014

Qualified Immunity Defendants ask us to find that they are entitled to qualified immunity. … In determining whether the officers are entitled to qualified immunity, the key question is “whether the right in question was ‘clearly established’ at the time of the violation.” Tolan v.

Brian O'Hagan v. Hector L. Soto

725 F.2d 878 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jan 16, 1984

Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 817-19 , 102 S.Ct. 2727, 2738-2739 , 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982), a defendant is entitled to prevail when his conduct does not violate “clearly established” rights, id. at 818 , 102 S.Ct. at 2739 . … Though the Sixth Amendment right to counsel is well established, the uncertainty as to whether it had attached at the time Soto questioned O’Hagan entitles Soto to resist liability on the basis of qualified immunity. 3 For

Rainsberger v. Benner

913 F.3d 640 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jan 15, 2019

Qualified immunity involves a two-pronged inquiry: (1) whether the facts, read in favor of the non-moving party, amount to a constitutional violation; and (2) whether the constitutional right was clearly established at the … But the first prong of the qualified immunity analysis is not the one designed to specially protect the officer-that comes at the second prong, which limits the officer's liability to violations of clearly established law

Russell L. Streetman v. Lt. Gary Jordan, Etc.

918 F.2d 555 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jan 4, 1991

We address the merits of Streetman’s second notice of appeal, which correctly identifies the order appealed. 1 Qualified Immunity: A Pleading Problem Qualified immunity cloaks a police officer from personal liability for … discretionary acts which do not violate well-established law.

Jenkins v. Medford

119 F.3d 1156 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Aug 7, 1997

to a qualified immunity defense.” *1159 I. … of state law. 8 Medford argues on appeal, as he did in the court below, that he is entitled to qualified immunity because the deputies have not alleged a violation of a “clearly established” right; he is immune from suit

Lionel Alexander v. City of Round Rock

854 F.3d 298 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Apr 18, 2017

It therefore did not reach the qualified immunity issue. 1. … We hold that Alexander’s claim on this point cannot overcome the officers’ qualified immunity, because “it was not clearly established that an individual has a First Amendment right to refuse to answer an officer’s questions

Morfin v. City Of East Chicago

349 F.3d 989 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Nov 18, 2003

Additionally, the district court found that the officers were entitled to qualified immunity because "based upon the factual record these ECPD officers did not violate any clearly established rule prohibiting such conduct … Morfin, the law is clearly established that an officer has a duty to intervene to prevent a false arrest or the use of excessive force if the officer is informed of the facts that establish a constitutional violation and

Henry Benitez v. D. Wolff, J. Kihl

985 F.2d 662 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Feb 3, 1993

The court also ruled that if defendants had violated Beni-tez’s right to due process, they were entitled to qualified immunity because the specific right infringed was not “ ‘clearly established’ at the time of the alleged … Qualified Immunity The doctrine of qualified immunity shields state officials from liability for damages if their actions did not violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person

Anthony Novak v. City of Parma

932 F.3d 421 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 29, 2019

Page 5 Officers Riley and Connor are entitled to qualified immunity “unless (1) they violated a federal statutory or constitutional right, and (2) the unlawfulness of their conduct was clearly established at the … They do not bear on the qualified immunity analysis above because, as with most interesting legal issues, the law is not clearly established. Issue 1.

MacFarlane v. Walter

179 F.3d 1131 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · May 5, 1999

In both the Teague and qualified immunity contexts, the Supreme Court has determined that a precedent is "clearly established" if it compels a particular legal result. Under Teague v. … Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 640 , 107 S.Ct. 3034 , 97 L.Ed.2d 523 (1987), the Supreme Court specifically rejected the notion that a right can be clearly established for qualified immunity purposes only if "the very action in

Clem v. Corbeau

284 F.3d 543 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Mar 25, 2002

Accordingly, a constitutional right is clearly established for qualified immunity purposes not only when it has been “specifically adjudicated” but also when it is “manifestly included within more general applications of … Indeed, in this circuit, we have found only one case in which an officer sought qualified immunity on facts like those alleged by Clem, and there we con-eluded that the officer’s appeal of the denial of qualified immunity

Sorey v. Kellett

849 F.2d 960 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Sep 20, 1988

Sec. 1291 , however, is clearly a matter of federal law; state procedural law is not directly controlling. Budinich v. … The court held that the commissioners were protected by qualified immunity because they had "no role in the roommate selection or supervision of 'clients'," but merely exercised discretionary authority over the establishment

Julious McGruder v. Jeff Heagwood Clyde Murphy, Jr. Bobby Baxter

197 F.3d 918 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Dec 7, 1999

The District Court 1 granted defendants summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity. McGru-der appeals, and we affirm. … Qualified immunity shields government officials from liability for civil damages “unless their conduct violated a clearly established constitutional or statutory right of which a reasonable person would have known.”

Clark v. Levesque

336 F. App'x 93 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jul 8, 2009

And because the statutory rights were not well-established, the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity whether or not their conduct would in fact have violated RLUIPA. See Harlow v. … established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”).

Kathleen Cope and Teresa D. Davis v. Devra S. Heltsley, Individually and in Her Official Capacity as Hopkins County Court Clerk

128 F.3d 452 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Dec 16, 1997

Heltsley was entitled to qualified immunity because a reasonable officer presented with the facts known to her would not have believed that she was violating any clearly established constitutional right of the plaintiffs … Ill Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, as explained by the Supreme Court in Harlow v.