Case law

Alfano v. Lynch

847 F.3d 71 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Feb 1, 2017

The doctrine of qualified immunity shields from liability public officials, including police officers, whose conduct does not violate clearly established federal statutory or constitutional rights … "[Q]ualified immunity shields government officials 'from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have

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.

Russell v. Wayne County School District

District Court, S.D. Mississippi · Aug 16, 2019

Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 639 (1987) (reciting that qualified immunity turns on the “legal rules that were ‘clearly established’ at the time [the official action] was taken”). … Town of Ball, 827 F.3d 515, 529 (5th Cir. 2016) (permitting Monell claim to proceed to trial despite grant of qualified immunity based on the ‘clearly established’ prong).

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).

Stanley R. Palowsky, III, Individually, and on Behalf of Alternative Environmental Solutions, Inc. v. Allyson Campbell

Supreme Court of Louisiana · Jun 26, 2019

Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 815-19, 102 S.Ct. 2727, 2736-39, 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982) (allegations of malice are insufficient to overcome qualified immunity). … Conduct, clearly recognizes the dichotomy between adjudicative and administrative duties.

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

McIntosh Ex Rel. Estate of McIntosh v. Smith

690 F. Supp. 2d 515 · District Court, S.D. Texas · Feb 2, 2010

Qualified Immunity “[government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages [by qualified immunity] insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … and the then clearly established law.

Mallett Jr. v. Goines

District Court, S.D. Texas · Nov 22, 2021

This second prong of the qualified immunity analysis involves “two separate inquiries: whether the allegedly violated constitutional rights were clearly established at the time of the incident; and, if so, whether the conduct … City of Arlington, Texas, 16 F.4th 1159 (Sth Cir. 2021) (affirming the dismissal of claims based on qualified immunity when “the plaintiffs failed to identify any clearly established law that would place beyond doubt the

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.

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

Juan Shelton v. Brian Stevens

964 F.3d 747 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jul 9, 2020

The district court ruled that all officers except Stevens were entitled to qualified immunity. … Even so, to defeat Stevens’s defense of qualified immunity, Shelton must demonstrate that his right to be free from this particular use of force was clearly established at the time of the incident.

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

Porter v. Epps

659 F.3d 440 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Sep 28, 2011

in light of clearly established law at the time of the violation. … We further noted that “the subjective deliberate indifference standard serves only to demonstrate the clearly established law in effect at the time of the incident.” Id. Here, we are concerned with qualified immunity.

People of Guam v. ELIGIO ADRIATICO

Supreme Court of Guam · Dec 13, 2024

Md. 1976) (applying Kastigar, stating, “The legislative history of this statute clearly reveals a congressional intent that a ‘statutory (claim of immunity) . . . be as broad as, but no broader than, the privilege against … [58] Here, the established principles of federal law dictate a result—the alleged unconstitutional action does not fall below a federal floor.

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.

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.

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

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.

Anders v. Cuevas

District Court, E.D. Michigan · Oct 8, 2019

They did not argue that Plaintiffs failed to establish a constitutional violation or that Sollars did not violate a clearly established constitutional right. See Rondigo, L.L.C. v. … that violated clearly established law.’”).