Case law

Michael Bearden v. Dudley Lemon

Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Feb 2, 2007

Further, “[t]his court has . . . taken a broad view of what constitutes ‘clearly established law’ for the purposes of a qualified immunity inquiry . . . . Sexton 210 F.3d at 909 (quoting Boswell v. … “[I]f the law claimed to have been violated was clearly established, the qualified immunity defense ordinarily fails, ‘since a reasonably competent public official should know the law governing his conduct.’”

Blankerhorn v. City of Orange

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · May 7, 2007

“Whether a right is ‘clearly established’ for purposes of qualified immunity is an  BLANKENHORN v. … Saucier’s requirement that the plaintiff’s asserted right be clearly established “does not mean that the very action at issue must have been held unlaw- ful before qualified immunity is shed.” Wall v.

PRATT v. ANN KLEIN FORENSIC CENTER

District Court, D. New Jersey · Sep 18, 2019

established right.” … App’x 142, 144 (3d Cir. 2006) (“Because there is a genuine issue of fact as to whether [defendant] was deliberately indifferent, he has not carried his burden to establish that he is entitled to qualified immunity.”); Carter

Gore

District Court, D. Utah · Oct 23, 2025

to this action and then they can raise the qualified immunity defense themselves.”). … Antoine, 508 U.S. at 432 (“The proponent of a claim to absolute [judicial] immunity bears the burden of establishing the justification for such immunity.”). 38 Obeslo, 2017 U.S. Dist.

Barrows v. Larry

District Court, N.D. Illinois · Mar 12, 2020

Qualified Immunity Defendants argue in the alternative that they are entitled to summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds. (Dkt. 119-1, at 9-10). … established right that overcomes qualified immunity); Cavalieri v.

CORDERO v. KELLEY

District Court, D. New Jersey · Apr 20, 2023

Defendants contend they are entitled to qualified immunity because there is no law that clearly established that a prison cannot limit bulk religious mailings sent directly to an inmate through the prison mailroom … Qualified immunity protects 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

Niewolak v. CITY OF HIGHLAND PARK, MI

District Court, E.D. Michigan · Sep 18, 2020

“Qualified immunity is an affirmative defense shielding governmental officials from liability as long as their conduct ‘does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … City of Troy, 247 F.3d 633, 641 (6th Cir. 2001) (the right to be free from “excessively forceful handcuffing” is clearly established for qualified immunity purposes).

Klump v. Nazareth Area School District

425 F. Supp. 2d 622 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 30, 2006

Therefore, each defendant would be entitled to qualified immunity unless she violated a clearly established constitutional right of plaintiff Christopher Klump. In other words, there is a two-part test. … Further, even if the defendants did violate Christopher Klump’s constitutional rights, they would have qualified immunity if the constitutional right were not clearly established.

Patricia Finnegan v. Richard Fountain

915 F.2d 817 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Oct 1, 1990

By comparison, to establish the qualified immunity defense, a police officer must satisfy one of two tests: either that his conduct did not violate “clearly established rights” of which a reasonable person would have known … We read Finnegan’s argument to state that any use of constitutionally excessive force violates “clearly established” rights, so that the qualified immunity may not shield one who has used excessive force.

California Attorneys for Criminal Justice v. Butts

195 F.3d 1039 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Nov 8, 1999

The defendants contend, however, that they are nevertheless entitled to qualified immunity because reasonable officers in their position could have believed that their interrogation did not violate “clearly established rights … The Right is Clearly Established To be “clearly established” for the purpose of overcoming qualified immunity, “[t]he contours of the right must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what

DAVIS v. BURKE

District Court, D. New Jersey · Mar 7, 2022

“Qualified immunity shields government officials from personal liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would … App’x 373, 378-79 (3d Cir. 2004) (“To the extent the Supervisory Defendants fail to address the issue [of whether a right was clearly established], therefore, their claim for qualified immunity fails ipso facto.”).

(PC) Taylor v. Commissioner of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation

District Court, E.D. California · Nov 3, 2022

clearly established statutory or 7 constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … If the law 21 did not put the officer on notice that his conduct would be clearly unlawful, summary judgment 22 based on qualified immunity is appropriate.

Wood v. Moss

572 U.S. 744 · Supreme Court of the United States · May 27, 2014

Officials are sheltered from suit, under a doctrine known as qualified immunity, when their conduct “does not violate clearly established . . . constitutional rights” a reasonable official, similarly situated, would have … The agents further maintained that they were sheltered by qualified immunity because the constitutional right al- leged by the protesters was not clearly established. The District Court denied the motion, see Moss v.

Alex Wayne Morton v. Jeremy Kirkwood

707 F.3d 1276 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Feb 8, 2013

Qualified immunity does not apply where the facts show that the official violated the plaintiff’s constitutional rights and where the law clearly established those rights at the time of the alleged misconduct. … Kirkwood would nonetheless be entitled to qualified immunity unless Morton can show that the law clearly established his rights at the time of the putative misconduct. See Pearson, 555 U.S. at 232.

Leverington v. City of Colorado Springs

643 F.3d 719 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · May 5, 2011

be resolved as a matter of law, the law is not clearly established and qualified immunity is appropriate.” … Leverington’s free-speech rights in this context were not clearly established, and Peters is entitled to qualified immunity on this basis. In addition, it was not clearly established that Ms.

(PC) Bowell v. California Department of Corrections

District Court, E.D. California · Jul 30, 2020

Legal Standards 3 Qualified immunity applies when an official’s conduct does not violate clearly established 4 statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … City of Roseville, 882 F.3d 843, 856-57 16 (9th Cir. 2018) (noting that Ninth Circuit precedent is sufficient to meet the “clearly established” 17 prong of qualified immunity); Hamby v.

Governmental Interinsurance Exchange v. Judge

Illinois Supreme Court · May 18, 2006

City of Aurora, 71 Ill. 2d 1, 11 (1978) (AThis court has clearly established the rule that once a governmental unit >adopts a plan in the making of public improvements,= it owes a duty to a plaintiff to maintain those improvements … AThe above regulations clearly establish that, contrary to the dissent=s statement *** a broken yellow line does indicate a passing zone.

Harden v. Byers

128 F.4th 1156 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Feb 14, 2025

To carry her burden on the second prong of our qualified immunity analysis, Works must show that Byers’ constitutional misconduct violated her clearly established right. … Byers, therefore, violated a clearly established constitutional right, and Works overcomes the second prong of qualified immunity.

Maria Sandoval v. Peter Hish

461 F. App'x 568 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Dec 12, 2011

The use of physical restraints, moreover, also would have violated the decedent’s clearly established right to be free from excessive force at the time of the incident. … Defendants, therefore, were not entitled to qualified immunity. AFFIRMED. 3

Timpa v. The City of Dallas

District Court, N.D. Texas · Jul 6, 2020

Adherence to the Fifth Circuit’s qualified immunity analysis in Pratt, as well as the Supreme Court’s frequent exhortation “not to define clearly established law at a high level of generality,” means that Gutierrez does … Because there is no clearly established law holding unconstitutional restraints analogous to the Defendants’ restraint of Timpa, the Court holds that qualified immunity bars the excessive force claims against the Defendants