Case law

Walden v. Carmack

156 F.3d 861 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Sep 28, 1998

In resolving a case in which the defense of qualified immunity has been raised, this Court must determine whether the appellees asserted a violation of a federal right, whether that right was clearly established, and whether … These persons are immune from suit on the basis of qualified immunity unless their conduct violated clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. Harlow v.

Sherrod v. McHugh

District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 25, 2018

Accordingly, Detective McHugh is entitled to qualified immunity on this claim because the stop did not violate the Sherrods’ constitutional rights or, at the very least, it was not clearly established that a stop of this … established, he is entitled to qualified immunity.

Clemente Properties, Inc. v. Pierluisi-Urrutia

Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Jan 16, 2026

recognizing that judges may begin by considering whether a right is "clearly established"). … Under the qualified immunity doctrine, an official is immune to liability for damages when his or her "conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would

(PC) Hafiz v. Yates

District Court, E.D. California · Apr 16, 2020

Hines, 914 F.3d at 1230. 1 Ninth Circuit, like the courts below, proceeded “straight to the second prong of the qualified 2 immunity analysis: whether a right to not face a heightened risk was ‘clearly established’ … Katz, 533 U.S. 4 194, 201 (2001) (establishing the two-part inquiry for qualified immunity: (1) whether the 5 alleged facts violate the Constitution, and (2) if so, whether the constitutional right at issue was 6 clearly

McMahon v. City of Beardstown

District Court, C.D. Illinois · Mar 25, 2024

But where the law was clearly established, both qualified immunity questions must be addressed. Id. … McMahon’s clearly established right to be free from unreasonable seizures. As a result, the Court cannot find that the Defendant is entitled to qualified immunity. See Nettles-Bey v.

Colin A. Edwards v. Bryan C. Shanley

666 F.3d 1289 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jan 12, 2012

“Qualified immunity shields government officials from liability for civil damages for torts committed while performing discretionary duties unless their conduct violates a clearly established statutory or constitutional … As a result, Officer Shanley cannot claim qualified immunity on the grounds that he did not know he was violating Edwards’s constitutional rights.5 In sum, we hold that clearly established federal law prohibits

Maureen Mirabella v. Susan Villard

853 F.3d 641 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Apr 4, 2017

The rights allegedly violated, however, were not clearly established for the purpose of qualified immunity. … Under the second prong of qualified immunity, however, we conclude that the right was not clearly established.

Cleveland v. Martin

590 F. App'x 726 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Oct 23, 2014

 Qualified Immunity. … With these unpublished decisions, we cannot find a clearly established liberty interest. And without such an interest, the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity on the procedural due process claim.

Douglas v. University of Hawaii

District Court, D. Hawaii · Aug 7, 2023

In other words, an official is entitled to qualified immunity unless a law that was clearly established at the relevant time showed that his conduct was unlawful and “a reasonable official could not have believed” otherwise … Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 528 (1985) (qualified immunity protects officials unless “the law clearly proscribed the[ir] actions”).

Angelo DiLuzio v. Village of Yorkville Ohio

796 F.3d 604 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 6, 2015

Specifically, as pertinent here, the court denied qualified immunity to Mayor DiFilippo and Fire Chief Klubert on the due process claim concerning demolition of the building, denied qualified immunity to Police Chief Morelli … Qualified immunity shields government officials in the performance of discretionary functions from standing trial for civil liability unless their actions violate clearly established rights. Harlow v.

Al-Jundi v. Estate Of

885 F.2d 1060 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Sep 15, 1989

from suit under the doctrine of qualified immunity. … may enjoy qualified immunity if it was objectively reasonable for him to believe that his acts did not violate those rights." 28 Al-Jundi contends that, at the time of the Attica riot, the law was well-established that the

Purtell v. Mason

527 F.3d 615 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · May 14, 2008

Qualified-immunity claims are determined by reference to the two-part inquiry established in Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194, 201, 121 S.Ct. 2151 , 150 L.Ed.2d 272 (2001). … The plaintiff bears the burden of demonstrating the violation of a clearly established right. Forman v.

Blaine Sallier v. Deborah Brooks and Christine Ramsey

343 F.3d 868 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Sep 18, 2003

In 1993 in Lavado , when faced with a qualified immunity issue, we held that it was clearly established as of 1987 that a prisoner’s mail could not be opened and read in an arbitrary and capricious fashion. 992 F.2d at 610 … This analysis brings us to the third step of the qualified immunity: whether Sallier has offered sufficient evidence to indicate that the defendants’ actions were objectively unreasonable in light of the clearly established

ESTATE OF FRANCES D. DEROSA v. MURPHY

District Court, D. New Jersey · Jan 21, 2025

. ¶¶ 79, 80, 94.)2 On May 12, 2023, Judge Quraishi granted defendants’ motion to dismiss, finding that because no clearly established right was violated, defendants were entitled to qualified immunity. … “Officials demonstrate they are entitled to qualified immunity only if they can show that a reasonable person in their position at the relevant time could have believed, in light of clearly established law, that their conduct

Sanchez v. The Village of Wheeling

District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jan 30, 2020

Evanston Defendants seek qualified immunity for Detective Bush, arguing that the right at issue was not clearly established. Doc. 49 at 4-9. … To avoid qualified immunity, Sánchez must show that the right was clearly established “in a particularized sense, rather than at a high level of generality.” Alicea v.

Doe v. Gray

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Mar 1, 2022

Qualified immunity shields officials from liability unless a claimant proves two elements: first, that the official violated a constitutional right; and second, that this right was clearly established at the time of the … Argument on probable cause collapses into the second step of the qualified immunity analysis. The right to be free from warrantless arrests without probable cause has long been clearly established. Burritt v.

Wendell Smith v. Pike County, Kentucky

338 F. App'x 481 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 10, 2009

The district court held that in the absence of a clearly established constitutional right to the specific medical treatment in question, the defendants were entitled to qualified immunity. … Peed, 195 F.3d 692, 695 (4th Cir. 1999), the district court correctly held that the defendants were entitled to qualified immunity. See Saucier v.

Johnson v. Dobbins

District Court, M.D. Tennessee · Jun 17, 2021

“To survive a motion to dismiss on qualified- immunity grounds, the plaintiff must allege facts that ‘plausibly mak[e] out a claim that the defendant’s conduct violated a constitutional right that was clearly established … Here, Plaintiff alleges that the County Defendants violated clearly established law by placing him in solitary confinement without justification. (Doc. No. 67 at 10).

Robbins Ex Rel. Robbins v. Oklahoma Ex Rel. Department of Human Services

519 F.3d 1242 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Mar 21, 2008

the alleged violation was not clearly established. … defendant violated clearly established law.”

Kitrich Powell v. James Gibbons

453 F. App'x 712 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Oct 11, 2011

Dismissal was proper on Powell’s claim concerning the opening of his legal mail outside of his presence because defendants were entitled to qualified immunity. See Pearson v. … Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (2009) (concluding that state officers were entitled to qualified immunity because their actions did not violate clearly established law); Sherman v.