Case law

Keith Cockrell v. City of Cincinnati

468 F. App'x 491 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Feb 23, 2012

immunity still was appropriate, however, because law was not clearly established). … Because we resolve this case on the ‘clearly established' element of qualified immunity, we express no opinion on the constitutionality of Hall’s actions. .

United States v. Fred Romano

583 F.2d 1 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Aug 11, 1978

... is very general in nature and may implicate only low-level government employees” and that “because of the close relationship established by your Subcommittee with our investigators, proof that the immunized testimony … While the Government clearly would not be entitled to rely entirely on one or two conclusory affidavits to carry its burden, see United States v.

United States v. Sanchez Barreto

93 F.3d 17 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Aug 21, 1996

Under the well-established framework for evaluating plea-withdrawal motions, the district court considers all the circumstances, with particular attentionto four prominentfactors: (1) the plausibility … Consequently, without more, their general allegations of coercion, based on the imminence of trial or conflict-free defense counsel's enthusiasm for the negotiated plea bargain, are insufficient to establish

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. 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.

Rogers v. Pendleton

Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · May 9, 2001

While a consensus of cases of persuasive authority may clearly establish a right for qualified immunity purposes, the inverse is also true: if there are no cases of controlling authority in the jurisdiction in question, and … if other appellate federal courts have split on the question of whether an asserted right exists, the right cannot be clearly established for qualified immunity purposes.

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.

Alejandro Hernandez v. The City of El Paso

397 F. App'x 954 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Oct 20, 2010

Because we conclude that Defendants’ actions did not violate Plaintiff’s clearly established constitutional rights, we reverse the denial of their motion for qualified immunity, and remand to the district court for entry … such activity violates clearly established constitutional rights.”

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.”

Palafox

District Court, D. Arizona · Mar 26, 2026

Qualified Immunity 22 A defendant in a § 1983 action is entitled to qualified immunity from damages for 23 civil liability if his conduct does not violate clearly established … The “qualified immunity 3 inquiry” asks if the right was clearly established at the relevant time.

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.

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.

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

Capogrosso v. Gelbstein

District Court, E.D. New York · Sep 25, 2019

Eighth, Judge Bloom recommended that the Court deny the motion to dismiss on qualified immunity grounds because the State Defendants “fail to articulate the ‘clearly established right’ upon which they base their qualified … Qualified Immunity “Qualified immunity protects officers from suit so long as ‘their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which

Pritzker v. City of Hudson

26 F. Supp. 2d 433 · District Court, N.D. New York · Oct 30, 1998

Qualified Immunity Defendants claim that, even if plaintiff can establish a prima facie case of malicious prosecution, they are entitled to qualified immunity. … “Even where a right is clearly established, an official is entitled to qualified immunity nevertheless if ‘it was objectively reasonable for the public official to believe that his acts did not violate th[at] right[ ].’ ”

Morales v. Chadbourne

793 F.3d 208 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Jul 17, 2015

Donaghy argues that he is entitled to qualified immunity on Morales's Fourth Amendment claim because the law was not clearly established in 2009 that an ICE agent was required to have probable cause before issuing a detainer … For the reasons stated above, we affirm the district court's denial of qualified immunity on Morales's Fourth Amendment claim against Donaghy on the ground that the law was clearly established in 2009 that an ICE agent

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

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

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’”).

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.