Case law

Thomas Hayden Barnes v. Ronald M. Zaccari

669 F.3d 1295 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Feb 7, 2012

We turn now to the second part of the qualified immunity analysis: Was Barnes’s right to this predeprivation process clearly established at the relevant time? 2. … The process due Barnes was also clearly established.

Christopher Cantu v. City of Dothan, Alabama

974 F.3d 1217 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Sep 3, 2020

established, which entitled her to qualified immunity on the federal claim and state agent immunity on the state claim. … That means the same facts that establish an officer is not entitled to qualified immunity “also establish that [she] is not entitled to” state agent immunity. Hunter, 941 F.3d at 1284.

Garcia-Montoya v. State Treasurer's Office

130 N.M. 25 · New Mexico Supreme Court · Jan 18, 2001

Qualified immunity “shield[s] [government officials performing discretionary functions] from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of … “clearly established” at the time of the official’s conduct.

Baker v. Matheson

607 P.2d 233 · Utah Supreme Court · Dec 28, 1979

establishes that a constitutional provision has been violated. … noncitizens. 7 The doctrine of fundamental rights was first established in Corfield v.

Charles Johnson, Jr. v. City of Atlanta

107 F.4th 1292 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jul 12, 2024

To show that qualified immunity is not appropriate, “the plaintiff must establish two things: (1) the defendant violated a constitutional right, and (2) that constitutional right was ‘clearly established … immunity, and we do not address the second prong—whether the law was clearly established. 7 C.

Robert Stewart v. Donald Donges

915 F.2d 572 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Sep 17, 1990

The test for qualified immunity is whether defendants violated “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. … Once a defendant raises the defense of qualified immunity as a defense to an action, “[t]he plaintiff carries the burden of convincing the court that the law was clearly established.”

Wiggins v. Greiner

132 F. App'x 861 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · May 18, 2005

Wiggins submits that the highlighted language in Roberts clearly establishes that prosecution efforts to locate a witness must be “undertaken prior to trial” to demonstrate good-faith. … Whether the challenged photo display in this case clearly qualifies as a confirmatory identification is an issue of state law not relevant to our habeas review. See Estelle v.

Phillips v. Roane County, Tenn.

534 F.3d 531 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 25, 2008

Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, “government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … Was the Law Clearly Established?

Dennis Mize v. S. Tseng

703 F. App'x 547 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Nov 20, 2017

The district court properly dismissed Mize’s Eighth Amendment claim on the basis of qualified immunity because defendants’ conduct did not violate clearly established law. See Pearson v. … Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 232 (2009) (defendant is entitled to qualified immunity unless the conduct at issue violated a clearly established constitutional right); Hope v.

Young v. City of Providence

396 F. Supp. 2d 125 · District Court, D. Rhode Island · Nov 2, 2005

Camilo-Robles, 151 F.3d at 6 . 5 More specifically, “the ‘clearly established’ prong of the qualified immunity inquiry is satisfied when (1) the subordinate’s actions violated a clearly established constitutional right, and … The Second Prong: Clearly Established Law The second prong of the qualified immunity analysis “deals with fair warning; it asks whether the law was clearly established at the time of the constitutional violation.”

Elder v. Holloway

975 F.2d 1388 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Dec 19, 1991

In opposition to the officers’ motion for summary judgment on qualified immunity, Elder proffered three out-of-state cases to show that the law was clearly established that a warrant was required to make a “constructive entry … On the issue of qualified immunity, Elder argued in the district court that the law was clearly established that an Idaho warrant was required to make a “constructive *1391 entry” over the threshold.

Morris v. ZEFFERI

601 F.3d 805 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Apr 13, 2010

Qualified Immunity “Qualified immunity protects a government official from liability in a [42 U.S.C. §] 1983 action unless the official’s conduct violated a clearly established constitutional or statutory right of … To defeat Zefferi’s qualified immunity claim, Morris must show Zefferi potentially violated Morris’s clearly established constitutional right as a pretrial detainee to be free from being transported for ninety minutes in

Isaiah Taylor v. Justin Schwarzhuber

132 F.4th 480 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Mar 17, 2025

Qualified immunity shields federal and state officials from monetary liability unless the law they ostensibly violated was clearly established at the time of the alleged offense. … The court awarded qualified immunity to Schwarzhuber and Rydzewski on Taylor’s initial stop and frisk claims be- cause Taylor did not provide cases showing the officers’ ac- tions violated clearly established law.

Stephen Hopkins v. Anthony Nichols

37 F.4th 1110 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 16, 2022

These errors, perhaps understandably, led the district court not to discuss the “clearly established” prong of the qualified immunity as it pertained to the seizure of Mrs. Hopkins. … Hopkins may have amounted to a clearly established constitutional violation. For those reasons, we conclude that the district court properly denied qualified immunity to defendants for the alleged seizure of Mrs.

Estate of C.A. v. Castro

547 F. App'x 621 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Nov 25, 2013

Individual Defendants’ Qualified Immunity State actors sued in their individual capacity under § 1983 are entitled to qualified immunity “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … An official “does not lose qualified immunity merely because a certain right is clearly established in the abstract....

Walsh v. Franco

849 F.2d 66 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jun 6, 1988

Qualified or “good faith” immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions from liability “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … In Robison , we outlined three ways in which an official could establish his entitlement to qualified immunity.

Freeman v. Fallin

422 F. Supp. 2d 53 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 3, 2006

Qualified immunity “shield[s 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 known.” … contain hidden, and at the time unexpounded, constitutional roadblocks. 9 Accordingly, the plaintiffs’ Fourth Amendment right was not clearly established, Butera, 235 F.3d at 646 , and these defendants are entitled to qualified

Elmer Pace and Linda Pace v. City of Des Moines, Iowa, and Brian Danner

201 F.3d 1050 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jan 13, 2000

of clearly established law.” … have violated plaintiffs clearly established right.”

DeNucci v. Henningsen

248 Or. App. 59 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Feb 8, 2012

of ORS 162.257 was not clearly established, so he was entitled to qualified immunity. … Despite the lack of probable cause for the arrest, however, Henningsen is still entitled to qualified immunity if plaintiffs right not to be arrested for her conduct was not “clearly established” at the time.

Langford v. Norris

614 F.3d 445 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jul 20, 2010

The court also rejected the state defendants’ qualified immunity defense, stating in generic terms that “the plaintiffs’ constitutional rights to adequate medical care and treatment [were] clearly established.” … It remains to decide whether the right Byus allegedly violated was clearly established.