Case law

Phillip D. Carlson and Thomas R. Smith v. Mary E. Gorecki

374 F.3d 461 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jul 23, 2004

Finally, based on this record, Górecki is not entitled to qualified immunity. … The cloak of qualified immunity is removed from a government official if the plaintiffs show that the law prohibiting the government official’s conduct was “clearly established.” Gregorich v.

Sharon Anderson v. Mario Cornejo, Appeals Of: Sergei Hoteko, Patrick Noonan, and Robert Trotter

355 F.3d 1021 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jan 21, 2004

Three of the defendants in this Bivens action have taken interlocutory appeals, contending that they are entitled to qualified immunity. … Similarly, the knowledge of prosecutors (and judges) that most defendants in crack-cocaine cases are black does not establish discrimination.

Estate of Usaamah Abdullah Rahim v. Doe 2

Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Oct 20, 2022

We hold that the officers are entitled to qualified immunity under each aspect of the "clearly established" prong of the defense. … The Supreme Court has repeatedly found that officers acting under such circumstances do not violate clearly established law. Two of the Court's recent grants of qualified immunity are illustrative.

Jarett

District Court, D. Kansas · Feb 20, 2026

A defendant may assert qualified immunity and the plaintiff then bears the burden of showing (1) that the defendant’s actions violated a constitutional right, and (2) that the right was clearly established at the time of … He has the burden on qualified immunity, and he has not met it.

Rudebusch v. Hughes

313 F.3d 506 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Dec 9, 2002

Equal Protection Claims ajnd Qualified Immunity Under Saucier v. … have been violated were [Rudebusch’s] allegations established, there is no necessity for further inquiries concerning qualified immunity.”

James Myers v. City of Centerville, Ohio

41 F.4th 746 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 21, 2022

Crawford, 15 F.4th at 763 (“[M]ost statements of this proposition are careful to explain that its application rests on qualified immunity’s clearly established prong.”); id. at 765. … right was clearly established.

Lawyer v. City of Council Bluffs

361 F.3d 1099 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Mar 26, 2004

II. 11 "Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, state actors are protected from civil liability when `their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would … A court engaged in a qualified immunity inquiry uses a two-step process.

Stanton v. Sims

571 U.S. 3 · Supreme Court of the United States · Nov 4, 2013

immunity because no clearly established law put him on notice that his conduct was unconstitutional. … qualified immunity precisely because the law regarding warrantless entry in hot pursuit of a fleeing misdemean- ant is not clearly established.

Sealed 1 v. Farber

212 F. App'x 42 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jan 9, 2007

Accepting, as we must, plaintiffs’ versions of the facts on a summary judgment motion based on qualified immunity, see Salim v. … For the reasons discussed above, the decision of the district court denying Farber’s summary judgment motion based on qualified immunity is hereby AFFIRMED, and the Village of St.

James E. McCurdy v. Montgomery County, Ohio

240 F.3d 512 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Feb 16, 2001

Qualified immunity *520 shields government officials performing discretionary functions from liability for civil damages when their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … We apply a two-step analysis to determine whether a public official is entitled to qualified immunity: first, we determine whether a clearly established constitutional or statutory right has been violated; and second, we

United States v. Michael Wright

697 F.3d 306 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Oct 1, 2012

Because the district court awarded Amy nothing, it therefore clearly and indisputably erred. … proximate cause) with McGarity, 669 F.3d at 1267-70 (concluding that proximate cause was not established), Aumais, 656 F.3d at 154-55 (same), and Kennedy, 643 F.3d at 1263-65 (same). .

Savard v. Rhode Island

338 F.3d 23 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Aug 4, 2003

The defendants in this case were granted qualified immunity because, according to the district court, the law did not "clearly establish" that reasonable suspicion was needed to strip search people arrested for non-violent … We believe the right of such a person to be free of such a search was 'clearly established' on October 21, 1986."); Weber, 804 F.2d at 803 (denying qualified immunity for defendants who performed suspicionless strip searches

Alan Baynes v. Brandon Cleland

799 F.3d 600 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 24, 2015

Clearly Established Although the district court agreed that Baynes established the first prong of the qualified immunity analysis, it ultimately found that Baynes’ claim could not survive summary judgment because … This right was ‘clearly established’ for qualified immunity purposes at the time of Amanda’s seizure on October 30, 2002.”)

Virgie Lee Otey v. Melvin Marshall

121 F.3d 1150 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jul 30, 1997

A qualified immunity defense "shields government agents from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … the federal right allegedly infringed was clearly established . . . .

Mark A. Merritt v. M.D. Reed Charles Lanehart, Arkansas Department of Correction

120 F.3d 124 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jul 15, 1997

Qualified immunity *126 shields government officials from suit unless their conduct violates a clearly established constitutional or statutory right of which a reasonable person would have known. Harlow v. … In considering whether defendants are entitled to qualified immunity, we must consider whether the plaintiff has asserted a violation of a constitutional or statutory right that was clearly established at the time of the

Weyant v. Okst

101 F.3d 845 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Dec 3, 1996

clearly established constitutional rights, or (2) it was objectively reasonable for them to believe their acts did not violate those rights. … Qualified immunity does not protect those who are " 'plainly incompetent or those who knowingly violate the law.' " Hunter v. Bryant, 502 U.S. at 229 , 112 S.Ct. at 537 (quoting Malley v.

Brook Bernini v. City of St. Paul

665 F.3d 997 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jan 13, 2012

Qualified immunity shields a public official from suit for civil damages when his “conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … The officers are therefore entitled to qualified immunity unless (1) the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs, establishes a violation of a constitutional or statutory right, and (2) the right was

Wordy Jack Thompson, Jr. v. Judge Charles O. Betts

754 F.2d 1243 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Mar 11, 1985

Civ.P. 54(b). 1 It is well established that, “[i]n the absence of a certification by the district court that meets these two requirements, a partial disposition of a multi-claim or multi-party action does not qualify as a … Moore, 744 F.2d 1179, 1183-86 (5th Cir.1984) (holding that denial of claim of qualified immunity is not immediately appealable since it is designed to provide a lesser measure of protection).

Salvador Negrete v. G. Lewis

585 F. App'x 364 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Oct 7, 2014

The district court properly granted summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity because during his two-year placement in the prison’s modified program, it would not have been clear to a reasonable prison official … Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 232 (2009) (defendants are entitled to qualified immunity where there is no violation of plaintiff’s constitutional right or the right at issue was not “clearly established”); see also Noble v.

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