Case law

Magno J. Ortega, M.D. v. Dennis Michael O'connor, M.D. And Richard Friday

146 F.3d 1149 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jun 26, 1998

II To defeat a claim of qualified immunity, the plaintiff must show that “the law was clearly established” at the time of the violation of the plaintiffs statutory or constitutional right, such that “a reasonably competent … ’s conduct clearly established?

Duluth News-Tribune v. Medure

808 F. Supp. 671 · District Court, D. Minnesota · Aug 13, 1992

Qualified Immunity Government officials are shielded from liability under § 1983 in the performance of discretionary functions “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights … For qualified immunity purposes, “clearly established” law means “[t]he contours of the right [in question] must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that right.

Sales v. Grant

224 F.3d 293 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Aug 16, 2000

qualified immunity from suit.” … provide any explanation as to how or why qualified immunity might apply.

F.E. Trotter, Inc. v. Watkins

869 F.2d 1312 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Mar 10, 1989

were not clearly established at the time of the alleged violation. … Since no cases have so held, the violation was not clearly established, thus immunizing Navy appellees.

John Burk v. Linda L. Beene, Doctor, in Her Individual and Official Capacity as Director of the Arkansas State Board of Private Career Education

948 F.2d 489 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Nov 7, 1991

Thus the qualified immunity question “generally turns on the ‘objective legal reasonableness’ of the action, assessed in light of the legal rules that were ‘clearly established’ at the time it was taken.” … As the court stated, “Beene’s conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right because it was clearly established that the Fourth Amendment requires a truthful factual showing sufficient to constitute probable

Philip Rogers Scalice v. John Doe Davies, Sgt., Bill Weber Kurt Peterson, Superintendent Larry Kincheloe Linda Buccini, Defendants-Respondents

24 F.3d 249 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · May 17, 1994

Defendants' motion for summary judgment on the grounds of qualified immunity was granted by the district court. 1 We affirm. 3 We need only reach the issue of qualified immunity with respect to Scalice's claims against defendant … Even assuming that a policy prohibiting catalogs might violate a prisoner's First Amendment rights, we cannot say that such rights are so clearly established that Scalice's action survives defendant's qualified immunity defense

Kyle v. Bedlion

177 F. Supp. 3d 380 · District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 1, 2016

violated a clearly established right[.]” Muhammad, 881 F. Supp. 2d at 122. Therefore, Bedlion is entitled to qualified immunity on Kyle’s excessive force claim. B. … immunity on a false-arrest claim). 8 Kyle’s brief in opposition to Defendants’ qualified -immunity motion does not establish otherwise.

Davis v. District of Columbia

District Court, District of Columbia · May 31, 2016

In addition, as set forth above, such law is clearly established. Afari is thus not now protected by qualified immunity on Count I either. C. … Ward, 125 F.3d 1341, 1351 (10th Cir. 1997) (Fourth Amendment rule against unnecessary damage during search is clearly established for purposes of qualified immunity).

Leach v. Clay

District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 23, 2025

An officer is entitled to qualified immunity “unless (1) they violated a federal statutory or constitutional right, and (2) the unlawfulness of their conduct was ‘clearly established at the time.’” … The court thus cannot say that binding precedent at the time clearly established that Officer Whitehead acted unlawfully.

Doug Morgan v. Plano Independent School Dist

755 F.3d 757 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jun 3, 2014

To overcome the qualified immunity defense at the pleading stage, Morgan must allege that the objectionable conduct violated a right that was “clearly established at the time.” Pearson v. … The prior cases had so clearly established the law that the plaintiff was able to overcome the presumption in favor of qualified immunity. Id. at 1030 .

Delma Jackson v. Warden Carl Humphrey

776 F.3d 1232 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jan 13, 2015

We properly have “jurisdiction to hear this interlocutory appeal of the denial of qualified immunity as the issue involves the determination of whether the official[s’] conduct violated clearly established law.” … clearly established law.”

Maxcie Thomas, III v. Captain Houston Talley, Individually

251 F.3d 743 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · May 25, 2001

violate clearly established federal law, then the official would be entitled to *746 qualified immunity. … immunity typically, the issue whether the federal right alleg *747 edly infringed was ‘clearly established’ ” (emphasis in original).

SAUCIER v. KATZ Et Al.

533 U.S. 194 · Supreme Court of the United States · Jun 18, 2001

S. 386 (1989), sets forth the objective reasonableness test for evaluating excessive force claims, a principle the Court of Appeals concluded was clearly established for qualified immunity purposes. … II The Court of Appeals ruled first that the right was clearly established; and second that the reasonableness inquiry into excessive force meant that it need not consider aspects of qualified immunity, leaving the whole

Oscar J. Fernandez, Etc. v. Francis T. Leonard

784 F.2d 1209 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Mar 6, 1986

immunity, and (2) that the constitutional violations alleged were not clearly established at the time of the shooting and that, therefore, the district court erred in denying his claim of qualified immunity. … The qualified immunity question in this case is whether defendant Leonard should have known he was violating clearly established constitutional rights of the plaintiffs. 1.

Occupy Nashville v. William Haslam

769 F.3d 434 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Oct 8, 2014

the Plaza is not clearly established. … While qualified immunity can protect government officials for actions taken in the course of their duties, that protection is forfeited when an official’s conduct violates “clearly established statutory or constitutional

Brown v. City of Clewiston

644 F. Supp. 1417 · District Court, S.D. Florida · Sep 22, 1986

Summary Judgment Standard and Qualified Immunity In order to prevail on the qualified immunity defense (described, infra), PEREZ must show that there exists no genuine issue of material fact and that he is entitled to judgment … Stated succinctly, an officer was only entitled to qualified immunity if he established his reasonable, good faith belief that his actions were lawful and within the scope of his authority. See, e.g.. Barker v.

Kent Alexander v. William Perrill and Luis Rivera

916 F.2d 1392 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Oct 10, 1990

The prison officials moved for summary judgment arguing that they were entitled to qualified immunity because Alexander’s rights were not “clearly established” and that, in any event, they acted reasonably in response to … The issue before us only involves the question whether a qualified immunity defense bars the claim. The issue, thus, as we have said earlier, is only whether there was a clearly established duty to investigate.

Clarissa Gilmore v. Georgia Department of Corrections

111 F.4th 1118 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jul 29, 2024

But as we discuss, our prec- edent rejects that path to defeating qualified immunity. … qualified-immunity purposes.

Love v. Grashorn

134 F.4th 1109 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Apr 22, 2025

established right, and  Officer Grashorn had qualified immunity even if he had been mistaken about the danger. 1 Ms. … Because Officer Grashorn asserted qualified immunity, the plaintiffs bear the initial burden of showing that (1) Officer Grashorn violated the Constitution and (2) this violation was clearly established. Verdecia v.

Garnier v. Rodriguez

506 F.3d 22 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Oct 22, 2007

Calderón Garnier could establish the requisite criteria of §1983 whereby (1) a constitutional right was violated, (2) the right was clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct, and (3) a reasonable official … We affirm the district court's conclusion that the qualified immunity defense was not established at this early stage of the litigation. Affirmed. -12-