Case law

Peggy Kelley v. Mark Myler, Gene Patrick, Ralph Bell and Hurricane Foods, Inc.

149 F.3d 641 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jul 13, 1998

The court also found that because the arrest was reasonable, the officers did not violate any clearly established constitutional rights, and thus were entitled to qualified immunity for their actions. … Whether a defendant is entitled to a qualified immunity defense depends on the objective legal reasonableness of the defendant’s actions assessed in light of clearly established law.

Tarver v. City of Edna

410 F.3d 745 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · May 25, 2005

reasonable in light of clearly established law at the time the challenged conduct occurred. … Under the second step of qualified immunity analysis, Tarver must establish that Officer Bubela’s conduct was unreasonable in light of clearly established law.

United States v. Holy Land Foundation for Relief & Development

445 F.3d 771 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Apr 4, 2006

“The [appellant] must clearly and specifically set forth facts sufficient to satisfy these Art. Ill standing requirements. … “It is well-established that one panel of our court will not overturn another absent an intervening precedent by our court sitting en banc or a Supreme Court precedent.” FDIC v.

United States v. Granvel E. Windom

19 F.3d 1190 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Mar 24, 1994

Windom’s concern that his memory might have faded “is insufficient to *1196 establish that the delay impaired his defense.” Brock, 782 F.2d at 1447 . … Clearly, in light of the prevailing standard in this circuit, the evidence was sufficient to support Windom’s conviction on Count Seven. 2.

Rondigo, L.L.C. v. Township of Richmond

641 F.3d 673 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 1, 2011

P. 12(b)(6), so we review an assertion of qualified immunity to determine only whether the complaint ‘adequately alleges the commission of acts that violated clearly established law.’” (quoting Mitchell v. … When the qualified immunity defense is raised at the pleading stage, the court must determine only whether the complaint “adequately alleges the commission of acts that violated clearly established law.”

Ronald Mendoza v. Sherman Block, Los Angeles County

27 F.3d 1357 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · May 31, 1994

“[W]hen qualified immunity is at stake, [however], a court must first determine whether the law has been clearly established.” Romero, 931 F.2d at 628 . … Objective Reasonableness If the law governing an official’s conduct is clearly established, qualified immunity is available if a reasonable official could have believed the conduct at issue was lawful under that clearly established

Akande v. Grounds

555 F.3d 586 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Feb 9, 2009

Qualified immunity shields government officials from liability for civil damages where their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. … “clearly established” at the time of the defendant’s alleged misconduct.

EVANS

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · May 5, 2026

right was clearly established at the time of the violation. … the defendant’s conduct violated a clearly established right.”

Cecere v. City of New York

967 F.2d 826 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jun 26, 1992

The defense of qualified immunity shields governmental officials from civil liability if the official’s conduct did not violate constitutional rights that were clearly established at the pertinent time or if it was objectively … When a qualified immunity is asserted in a motion for summary judgment, of course, the facts material to the claim of qualified immunity must not be genuinely disputed. We believe that Puryear sustained his claim.

Rocha

District Court, D. Colorado · Mar 10, 2026

Rocha’s constitutional rights in violation of clearly established law. See Pahls v. … - immunity analysis, where we ask whether a clearly established constitutional right has been violated.”)

Cambre v. Smith

District Court, E.D. Louisiana · Aug 29, 2019

’ conduct was objectively unreasonable in light of then-existing clearly established law. … Helpenstell, 626 Fed.Appx. 453, 459–60 (5th Cir. 2015) (unpublished) (construing Deville as clearly establishing that an officer should receive no qualified immunity if he ‘quickly escalate[s]’ an encounter with a non-threatening

Pack

District Court, E.D. Missouri · May 18, 2026

Although Pack fails to plausibly allege that Officer Katterhenry or Officer Eder violated his rights, he fares still worse in attempting to show a violation of clearly established rights. … Quick, 909 F.3d 983, 985 (8th Cir. 2018) (noting a police officer is entitled to qualified immunity unless his “conduct violated a clearly established constitutional or statutory right of which a reasonable

David Picray v. Christopher Duffitt

652 F. App'x 497 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jun 6, 2016

established for purposes of qualified immunity. … Under the clearly established prong of qualified immunity, “[t]he dispositive question is ‘whether the violative nature of particular conduct is clearly established.’” Mullenix v. Luna, 136 S.

Jazmine Bryant v. Bill Hensley

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Mar 19, 2024

In Hunter and Payne’s view, that response failed to argue that qualified immunity did not apply to them. True, Bryant’s estate bears the burden of showing that qualified immunity does not apply. See Blake v. … Edmonson County, 18 F.4th 516, 530 (6th Cir. 2021) (holding that the defendant acted in bad faith and was “not eligible for state qualified immunity” under Kentucky law because he violated the plaintiff’s “clearly established

Art Tobias v. Michael Arteaga

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Apr 27, 2021

We reverse the denial of qualified immunity on Tobias’s Fourteenth Amendment substantive due process claim because it was not clearly established that the abusive  TOBIAS V. … Defendants fail to establish their entitlement to qualified immunity is ‘beyond controversy.’”

Waseem Daker v. Neil Warren

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 3, 2022

. § 1983, for failure to state a claim and qualified immunity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. … (repeating that an of- ficial is entitled to qualified immunity unless the “unlawfulness of [his] conduct was ‘clearly established at the time’”).

Tashonda Troupe v. St. Louis County, Missouri

Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jul 11, 2025

“A public official is entitled to qualified immunity unless: (1) their conduct violated a constitutional right, and (2) that right was clearly established.” Davis v. Buchanan Cnty., 11 F.4th 604, 623 (8th Cir. 2021). … “Qualified immunity is ‘appropriate where no reasonable fact finder could conclude that the facts when viewed in a light most favorable to the plaintiff show that the officers’ conduct violated a clearly established constitutional

Carlyle v. Dejesus

District Court, M.D. Florida · Jul 30, 2020

Therefore, he has failed to show the violation of a clearly established constitutional right. Accordingly, Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. See Buford v. … Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 526 (1985) (“Unless the plaintiff’s allegations state a claim of violation of clearly established law, a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal before the commencement of discovery

Fogarty v. Gallegos

523 F.3d 1147 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Apr 18, 2008

On appeal, defendants argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity on both counts because Fogarty’s evidence falls short of establishing a deprivation of a clearly established constitutional right. … they violated was clearly established.

Anthony J. Prisco, Jr. v. Dennis P. Talty, Individually T/a Zeitz and Talty Glenn A. Zeitz, Esq., Individually T/a Zeitz and Talty

993 F.2d 21 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Apr 30, 1993

Based on well-established standards of statutory construction, we hold that, with one clearly stated exception, the 1984 amendments do not apply to a cause of action which had accrued prior to the effective date of their … There we concluded that the government’s conduct violated Prisco's clearly established constitutional due process rights.