Case law

T.S. Ex Rel. J.S. v. Doe

742 F.3d 632 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Feb 5, 2014

The court went on to hold that Masters clearly established the right for both adults and juveniles to be free from strip searches absent individualized suspicion and, accordingly, denied qualified immunity to the defendants … We note, however, that the touchstone of qualified immunity in general, and the clearly-established-law inquiry in particular, is objective good faith. See Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 815 (1982).

Karen Jo Barrow v. Greenville Independent School District, Herman Smith, Dr.

332 F.3d 844 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jun 2, 2003

Herman Smith, on the ground of qualified immunity, and certified it as final. 1 We reverse. … The district court determined that Barrow had failed to allege the violation of a clearly established constitutional right in 1998 and that Smith was therefore entitled to qualified immunity.

Vaughn v. Ruoff

253 F.3d 1124 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jun 22, 2001

STANDARD OF REVIEW 4 Qualified immunity protects public officials when "their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known." Harlow v. … Qualified immunity analysis initially asks the following two questions: (1) was there a deprivation of a constitutional right, and, if so, (2) was the right clearly established at the time of the deprivation?

Arkansas Public Service Commission v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

712 F. App'x 3 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jan 30, 2018

Hare v. City of Corinth, Miss.

135 F.3d 320 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Feb 12, 1998

B. 39 The second prong of the qualified immunity test is better understood as two separate inquiries: whether the allegedly violated constitutional rights were clearly established at the time of the incident; and, if so, … Jones, 515 U.S. 304, 314 , 115 S.Ct. 2151, 2156 , 132 L.Ed.2d 238 (1995)). 54 Accordingly, for this appeal on qualified immunity, the subjective deliberate indifference standard serves only to demonstrate the clearly established

Reavis v. Frost

967 F.3d 978 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jul 28, 2020

There, we reversed the district court’s grant of qualified immunity with respect to the final shots because “Officer Chaffee violated clearly established law if he shot Mr. … “‘[G]eneral statements of the law’ can clearly establish a right for qualified immunity purposes if they apply ‘with obvious clarity to the specific conduct in question.’”

Druckenmiller v. United States

548 F. Supp. 193 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 1, 1982

As noted supra, the scope of the qualified immunity which the individual FBI agents retain is determined by reference to objective criteria; i.e., whether they violated “clearly established” law. … The Harlow court redefined the contours of the qualified immunity defense; we accordingly requested counsel to re-brief the qualified immunity issue. 2 .

Gina Torres v. Lance Coats

39 F.4th 494 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jul 1, 2022

“Qualified immunity is a shield from civil liability for officers whose conduct ‘does not violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”’” … Appellants’ remaining argument concerns the second step of the qualified immunity analysis: whether Hammett’s Fourth Amendment right to be free from excessive force was clearly established in June 2017.

Jenkins ex rel. Hall v. Talladega City Board of Education

115 F.3d 821 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jun 2, 1997

The "make specific” standard is substantially higher than the "clearly established” standard used to judge qualified immunity in section 1983 cases. Id. at 1393. … In this circuit, the law can be "clearly established” for qualified immunity purposes only by decisions of the U.S.

Opinion No.

Arkansas Attorney General Reports · Apr 8, 2004

Martin, 280 Ark. 345 , 658 S.W.2d 374 (1983) (holding that qualified immunity will not apply if the challenged conduct violates clearly established law that a reasonable person would have known). … However, because negligence is a state, not a federal, claim, your question does not raise any issue of qualified immunity.

Calloway v. Fauver

544 F. Supp. 584 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Aug 2, 1982

This was not a clearly established constitutional right during the periods relevant to this case. … Robinson, supra, can be said to create clearly established constitutional rights which would strip defendants of their qualified immunity.

Malik v. Brown

71 F.3d 724 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Nov 28, 1995

WRIGHT, Circuit Judge: In this qualified immunity case we decide whether a prisoner’s First Amendment right to use his religious name in conjunction with his committed name on outgoing mail was clearly established in 1990 … “[I]n the absence of binding precedent, a court should look to whatever decisional law is available to ascertain whether the law is clearly established” for qualified immunity purposes, Capoeman v.

Rojas v. Anderson

727 F.3d 1000 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jul 9, 2013

See Martinez, 479 F.3d at 1295 (“[T]he record must clearly demonstrate the plaintiff has satisfied his heavy two-part burden; otherwise, the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity.” … Nor does it discuss whether Plaintiff’s right to be free from such force was clearly established. Again, without any such argument, Defendants were entitled to qualified immunity.

Peters v. Peters

547 F. Supp. 2d 165 · District Court, D. Connecticut · Feb 21, 2008

Discussion Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, police officers may not be held *169 liable for conduct that “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would … Qualified immunity is warranted if either (1) the official’s actions did not violate clearly established law, or (2) even if the actions violated a clearly established law, the official was objectively reasonable in believing

Joseph Zadeh v. Mari Robinson

902 F.3d 483 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Aug 31, 2018

Requirement of clearly established law for qualified immunity We have concluded that there was a violation of Dr. Zadeh’s constitutional rights. … But owing to a legal deus ex machina—the “clearly established law” prong of qualified-immunity analysis—the violation eludes vindication.

Tammy Cass v. City of Abilene

814 F.3d 721 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Feb 24, 2016

Qualified immunity protects government officials from civil liability in their individual capacity to the extent that their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights. Trent v. … Appellants’ entire argument on this second prong of the qualified immunity test is that “it is clearly established in the law that citizens are protected against unjustified, excessive police force.”

Jones v. McNeese

675 F.3d 1158 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Mar 29, 2012

McNeese’s various arguments, we conclude he principally challenges the district court’s application of qualified immunity principles to the established summary judgment facts. … ; and (2) [whether] the right was clearly established at the time of the deprivation.”

Thomas E. Terrell v. Steve Smith

668 F.3d 1244 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jan 30, 2012

After thorough review, we conclude that Officer Smith is entitled to qualified immunity. … qualified immunity, even in the total absence of case law.”

Williams v. Borrego

5 F.4th 1129 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jul 21, 2021

Williams has overcome qualified immunity. To overcome the defendants’ assertion of qualified immunity, Mr. … Williams has adequately alleged the violation of a clearly established constitutional right, he has overcome qualified immunity.

Zappala v. Albicelli

954 F. Supp. 538 · District Court, N.D. New York · Feb 10, 1997

The qualified immunity standard requires a two-prong inquiry. The first prong inquires whether the right claimed to have been violated was clearly established at the time the Defendants acted. … Clearly Established Prong The purpose of the first prong of the qualified immunity test is to ask whether the Defendant official should have been on notice that his conduct could implicate a “clearly established” constitutional