Case law

Alfred R. Scicluna v. Harry G. Wells

345 F.3d 441 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Oct 2, 2003

Doctrine of qualified immunity The doctrine of qualified immunity shields from liability for civil damages those officials whose “conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a … We evaluate a defendant’s claim of qualified immunity by determining whether (1) a constitutional violation occurred, (2) the right violated was clearly established, and (3) “the plaintiff has alleged sufficient facts, and

Hatch v. Town of Middletown

311 F.3d 83 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Nov 19, 2002

Qualified Immunity 1. … The Supreme Court of Rhode Island made the following comments in reviewing the defendants' assertion of qualified immunity: [D]efendants argue that the doctrine of qualified immunity, an immunity typically

Foley Bey v. Prator

53 F.4th 854 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Nov 17, 2022

immunity defense alters the usual summary judgment burden of proof” because the plaintiff, to overcome qualified immunity, “must rebut the defense by establishing a genuine [dispute of material fact] as to whether … the official’s allegedly wrongful conduct violated clearly established law.”

Natale v. Town Of Ridgefield

927 F.2d 101 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Mar 5, 1991

A government official performing a discretionary function is entitled to qualified immunity provided his or her "conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … We disagree. 19 The threshold issue in determining the applicability of Katz' qualified immunity defense is whether the Natales had a "clearly established right" to the permits at issue.

Kenneth Craig Brady v. Fort Bend County, R. George Molina

58 F.3d 173 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Aug 25, 1995

Furthermore, the Fifth Circuit does not permit Sheriff Molina to refer to the views of the other circuits to establish that these prohibitions were not “clearly established.” … “Our inquiry [into what is clearly established law] ends, if we find from examining the decisions of the Supreme Court and our own decisions that the law was clearly established in this circuit.” Boddie v.

Smith v. Levine Leichtman Capital Partners, Inc.

723 F. Supp. 2d 1205 · District Court, N.D. California · Jun 29, 2010

With respect to NCG’s third argument, the Ninth Circuit has clearly held that qualified immunity is not available to private entities. … NCG has not provided any authority demonstrating that qualified immunity is available under California law for state-law claims.

Barrett v. Steubenville City Schools

388 F.3d 967 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Nov 15, 2004

Qualified immunity is an affirmative defense that shields government officials performing discretionary functions from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does “not violate clearly established statutory or … In accordance with these fundamental principles of law, Lucci cannot obtain qualified immunity by claiming that no clearly established right existed. III.

Pritchett v. Alford

973 F.2d 307 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Sep 28, 1992

Immunity may thus be established either on the basis that the right allegedly (or actually) violated was not at the time one "clearly established," or that, though "clearly established" (and violated), it was one that a " … But as earlier noted, a specific prior adjudication of right is not necessary to make it one "clearly established" for qualified immunity purposes.

Pella v. Adams

638 F. Supp. 94 · District Court, D. Nevada · May 8, 1986

The discovery was sufficient to establish probable cause for the urinalysis. There are no other allegations that the demanded urinalysis was conducted in an unreasonable manner. … ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY Defendants Armstrong and Snyder argue that they are absolutely immune as Board of Parole Commissioners.

Jones v. Coonce

7 F.3d 1359 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Oct 14, 1993

Helms, 459 U.S. 460 , 103 S.Ct. 864 , 74 L.Ed.2d 675 (1983), clearly established the law in this area, the court rejected the officials’ qualified immunity argument as to the due process violation. … In determining whether the officials are protected by qualified immunity, we must first decide the essentially legal question of whether the acts the inmates allege violated clearly established law, and then we must decide

Santander v. Salazar

133 F.4th 471 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Apr 4, 2025

Given the plausibility of Santander’s claim, we consider whether the alleged facts, if true, could defeat qualified immunity—specifically whether the right that Santander asserts was “clearly established.” … Brown, 844 F.3d 517, 524 (5th Cir. 2016) (“The second part of the [qualified immunity] inquiry looks to whether the right was clearly established at the time of the violation.” (emphasis added)).

Becker v. Bateman

709 F.3d 1019 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Feb 27, 2013

Thus, to overcome Officer Bateman’s defense of qualified immunity, Becker must demonstrate it was clearly established as of May 14, 2005, that Officer Bateman’s use of force was excessive. … Because Becker has thus failed to carry his burden to show the law was clearly established at the time of the incident, the district court properly concluded Officer Bateman was entitled to qualified immunity for Becker

James Solomon v. Deputy U.S. Marshal Thomas

699 F.3d 1034 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Nov 9, 2012

Jones and Thomas each moved for summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity. … In the other, the court determines whether the implicated right was clearly established at the time of the deprivation. Id. (citing Parrish, 594 F.3d at 1001).

Patel v. Dennett

389 F. Supp. 3d 888 · District Court, D. Nevada · Mar 27, 2018

And because it is clearly established that a citizen has the First Amendment right to criticize officers, even with profanity, Dennett is not entitled to qualified immunity on this claim. *897 B. … We have held that an officer is not entitled to qualified immunity on the grounds that the law is not clearly established every time a novel method is used to inflict injury.") (citation and quotations omitted).

Bryan Hinnen v. Thomas E. Kelly and Other Unknown Named Agents of the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration

992 F.2d 140 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jun 18, 1993

But the court found the law on probable cause was in a state of flux at the time of the magistrate’s issuance of the warrant, and therefore, Kelly was entitled to qualified immunity since plaintiffs’ rights were not clearly … We affirm the district court’s dismissal of plaintiffs’ suit because of Kelly’s qualified immunity.

Julian Nettles-Bey v. Philip Williams

819 F.3d 959 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Apr 14, 2016

The  district  judge  thought  that  this  suit  presents  a  triable   issue   not   because   of   any   doubt   about   the   law—the   judge   deemed   it   clearly   established   that   an   officer   may   not   arrest … That’s   the   qualified-­‐‑immunity   issue:   Whether   it   is   clearly   estab-­‐‑ lished   that   federal   law   (statutory   or   constitutional)   forbade   the   public   employees   to   act   as   they   did.  

Jeffery Stanton v. Cory Elliott

25 F.4th 227 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Feb 1, 2022

On this record, there is a genuine dispute of fact that might show a violation of a clearly established constitutional right. We thus reverse the district court’s grant of qualified immunity. I. … So granting summary judgment on qualified immunity was improper.

Hirschfeld v. Spanakos

909 F. Supp. 174 · District Court, S.D. New York · Dec 15, 1995

And while a reasonable defendant would have understood from existing law that the alleged acts were tortious under State law, the right that must be clearly established to defeat qualified immunity in a Section 1983 case … capacity suits than the federal doctrine of qualified immunity.

Turner v. Dammon

848 F.2d 440 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · May 3, 1988

Of course, if the plaintiff fails to allege “a violation of clearly established law, a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal before the commencement of discovery.” … The Supreme Cotut has clearly endorsed this view in the context of qualified immunity: [T]he right to due process of law is quite clearly established by the Due Process Clause, and thus there is a sense in which any action

Llantin-Ballester v. Negron-Irrizary

353 F. Supp. 2d 206 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Jan 7, 2005

Co-defendant Negron Irizarry also submits he is entitled to qualified immunity in his personal capacity since his conduct does not violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional right of which a reasonable person … The defendants are entitled to qualified immunity unless (1) the facts alleged show the defendants’ conduct violated a constitutional right, and (2) the contours of this right are "clearly established” under then-existing