Case law

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

P.C. v. McLaughlin

913 F.2d 1033 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Sep 6, 1990

P.C. clearly has a right to a free appropriate public education, but in order to defeat a qualified immunity defense he must show that such right was “clearly established” in more than just a general sense; that is, it must … Of course, when rights are not clearly established, appellants are entitled to qualified immunity as a matter of law. See Harlow, 457 U.S. at 818-19 , 102 S.Ct. at 2738 .

Vincent Henderson Daryelle Rexrode John Calella v. Stuart O. Simms Richard Lanham, Sr. William O. Filbert

223 F.3d 267 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Jul 28, 2000

The district court dismissed Appellants’ suit on the ground of qualified immunity, reasoning that Appellees did not violate Appellants’ clearly established constitutional rights under the Fourth or Fourteenth Amendment. … To that end, qualified immunity protects government officials performing discretionary functions from liability for civil damages “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional

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.”).

Erika Mabes v. Angela McFeeley

Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Apr 28, 2025

Both sets of defendants invoked qual- ified immunity, contending that their actions did not violate the Mabeses’ clearly established rights. … Thompson’s en- titlement to qualified immunity naturally follows from the Mabeses’ failure to carry their “burden of demonstrating the violation of a clearly established right.” Forman v.

Lawson v. Abrams

863 F.2d 260 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Dec 20, 1988

that decision, noted that prosecutors may assert only qualified immunity, not absolute immunity, for their administrative or investigative tasks not intimately associated with the judicial process. … have absolute immunity for some of their acts but only qualified immunity for others.

Marietta Robinson v. Sarah Pezzat

818 F.3d 1 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Apr 1, 2016

Seeking to avoid this result, the District urges us to affirm on an alternative ground, i.e., that Pezzat is entitled to qualified immunity because she violated no clearly established law. … In the district court, the District of Columbia argued only that Robinson suffered no constitutional injury; it never argued that the officers were entitled to qualified immunity on clearly established law grounds.

Martin v. Heideman

106 F.3d 1308 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Feb 14, 1997

Because most legal rights are “clearly established” at some level of generality, immunity would be impossible to obtain if a plaintiff were required only to cite an abstract legal principle that an official had “clearly” … Auger, 842 F.Supp. 25 (D.Me.1994)(cries of pain caused by too-tight cuffs; qualified immunity denied).

Sharrar v. Felsing

128 F.3d 810 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Oct 24, 1997

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY A. … To prevail on their qualified immunity claim,--a claim not reached by the district court--defendants must show that their conduct did not violate a clearly established constitutional right of which a reasonable officer would

Chandler v. Secretary of the Florida Department of Transportation

695 F.3d 1194 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Sep 19, 2012

Consequently, qualified immunity is denied. We review de novo the district court’s denial of the motion to dismiss on qualified immunity grounds. See Long v. Slaton, 508 F.3d 576, 579 (11th Cir.2007). II. … violation of a clearly established law.

55 Fair empl.prac.cas. 338, 51 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 39,294 William D. Crutcher, Marion L. Madry v. Commonwealth of Kentucky, Appeal of H. David Owens

883 F.2d 502 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 30, 1989

whether Owens violated clearly established constitutional rights, and *504 whether Madry sustained her burden of producing direct evidence of racially-based animus. … In remanding this issue, we note a confusion that has arisen at oral argument on this qualified immunity appeal.

David C. Skrtich v. Timothy Alvin Thornton

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jan 29, 2002

established law” of excessive force on its head and changes the purpose of qualified immunity in excessive force cases from one of protection for the legitimate use of force into a shield for clearly illegal conduct. … Layne, 526 U.S. 603, 615 (1999) (“‘clearly established’” for purposes of qualified immunity does not mean that “‘an official action is protected by qualified immunity unless the very action in question has previously been

Hawkins v. Steingut

829 F.2d 317 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Sep 18, 1987

We hold that defendants did not violate any of Hawkins’ clearly-established federal rights by failing to reappoint him, and therefore the individual defendants are entitled to qualified immunity as a matter of law. … The court found that the individual Board members were not entitled to qualified immunity from suit, apparently on the theory that Hawkins had a clearly-established first amendment right not to be terminated from his job

Smith v. Siegelman

322 F.3d 1290 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Feb 28, 2003

The qualified immunity defense may be raised and addressed on a motion to dismiss, and will be granted if the complaint “fails to allege the violation of a clearly established constitutional right.” Chesser v. … Qualified immunity protects government officials sued 'in their individual capacities as long as their conduct does not violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have

Nichols v. Lewis Grocer

138 F.3d 563 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Apr 3, 1998

Louisiana Office of Community Services, 47 F.3d 1438, 1444 (5th Cir. 1995) (“A factfinder can infer pretext if it finds that the employee was ‘clearly better qualified’ (as opposed to merely better or as qualified) than … Assuming arguendo that Nichols was indeed prepared to handle the rigors of the night perishables supervisor position, her listed “qualifications” nevertheless do not establish her to be ‘clearly better qualified’ for it

Aldaba v. Marshall County

844 F.3d 870 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Dec 20, 2016

Having further considered our earlier opinion, we now hold that the three law- enforcement officers are entitled to qualified immunity because they did not violate clearly established law. … Addressing only the clearly-established-law prong of the qualified-immunity analysis, the Supreme Court reversed. Id.

Navreet Nanda v. Gerald Moss

412 F.3d 836 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jun 27, 2005

ANALYSIS Government officials performing discretionary functions are entitled to qualified immunity from suit unless their conduct violated “clearly established ... constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would … Nanda’s Clearly Established Rights Having found that Dean Moss’s alleged actions violated Dr. Nanda’s constitutional rights, Dean Moss would still be entitled to qualified immunity if Dr.

Erika Mabes v. Angela McFeeley

Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Apr 28, 2025

Both sets of defendants invoked qual- ified immunity, contending that their actions did not violate the Mabeses’ clearly established rights. … Thompson’s en- titlement to qualified immunity naturally follows from the Mabeses’ failure to carry their “burden of demonstrating the violation of a clearly established right.” Forman v.

Brian Baude v. Gerald Leyshock

23 F.4th 1065 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jan 27, 2022

“Qualified immunity shields government officials from liability in a § 1983 action unless the official’s conduct violates a clearly established constitutional or statutory right of which a reasonable person would have known … Baude’s right to be free from the alleged types of force was clearly established in September of 2017. See Johnson v.

Jeanne Zaloga v. Borough of Moosic

841 F.3d 170 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Oct 24, 2016

Mercatili now appeals, arguing that he is entitled to qualified immunity because his conduct, even if Zaloga’s allegations are true, did not violate clearly established law. … Under the high standard for “clearly established” law, that is enough to defeat the Plaintiffs’ challenge to qualified immunity. V.