Case 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.

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.

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

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).

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

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

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.”

Wright v. Gualandri

District Court, N.D. Illinois · Feb 21, 2021

If Gualandri is contending that the record reflects at this point that he is entitled to qualified immunity because "a reasonable officer could have believed [the arrest] to be lawful, in light of clearly established law … Rohde, 778 F.3d 556, 560 (7th Cir. 2015) ("[F]abricating evidence . . . violates a clearly established constitutional right, such that qualified immunity does not shield the manufacturers of such evidence from liability

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

Marshall v. BD. OF CTY. COM'RS FOR JOHNSON CTY.

912 F. Supp. 1456 · District Court, D. Wyoming · Jan 22, 1996

in a qualified immunity case according to clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. … Further, a defendant is entitled to qualified immunity if the plaintiff fails to show that the law was clearly established. See, e.g., Pallottino v.

A. K. H. Ex Rel. Landeros v. City of Tustin

837 F.3d 1005 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Sep 16, 2016

A defendant who appeals a denial of qualified immunity on the ground that his “conduct did not violate the Fourth Amendment and, in any event, did not violate clearly established law” has “raise[d] legal issues” that may … Clearly Established Right Although we conclude Officer Villarreal’s actions violated the Fourth Amendment, we may affirm the district court’s denial of qualified immunity only if “the right which was violated was clearly

Cojocaru v. City University of New York

District Court, S.D. New York · Apr 29, 2021

Further, the Individual CUNY Defendants intend to argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity and “[u]ntil the threshold issue of qualified immunity has been decided, “discovery should not be allowed.” … Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 526 (1985) (“Unless the plaintiff's allegations state a claim of violation of clearly established law, a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal before the commencement of discovery

Integrated Resources Equity Corp. v. Fairbanks North Star Borough

799 P.2d 295 · Alaska Supreme Court · Sep 7, 1990

Sutro & Co., 646 P.2d 715, 721 (Utah 1982) (university trustees’ investment decisions held to be discretionary and thus protected by the rule of qualified immunity). … We are thus unable to conclude that Helms and Wortman violated clearly established 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.