Case law

Michael Washington v. City of Cincinnati

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 13, 2026

Because Washington’s protected property interest was not “clearly established,” Long’s claim of qualified immunity prevails. A. How to recognize a clearly established right is well understood. … Rather than awarding qualified immunity unless it was obvious that Long violated Washington’s clearly established rights, the majority opinion would deny qualified immunity unless it was obvious that Long did not do so.

Brown v. Flowers

974 F.3d 1178 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Sep 14, 2020

Because we find our existing caselaw on the sexual abuse of inmates clearly established the contours of Brown’s rights, we affirm the denial of qualified immunity. … Under that standard, we must grant Flowers qualified immunity unless “(1) a reasonable jury could find facts supporting a violation of a constitutional right, which (2) was clearly established at the time of [Flowers’s

Marley v. City of Allentown

774 F. Supp. 343 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 23, 1991

A government official asserting qualified immunity must establish that his conduct did “not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. … the legal rules that were ‘clearly established at the time it was taken.’”

Cameron Lewis v. Kevin Caraballo

98 F.4th 521 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Apr 15, 2024

We now turn to the second prong of the qualified-immunity analysis, “whether the [constitutional or statutory] violation was of a ‘clearly established’ right.” Valladares v. … established law for purposes of adjudging entitlement to qualified immunity.’”)

Morse v. Cloutier

869 F.3d 16 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Aug 25, 2017

Accordingly, we proceed to the next step of the qualified immunity paradigm and consider whether the applicable law was so clearly established that no reasonable officer would have entered the plaintiffs' home without … Payton and its progeny clarify a matter of Fourth Amendment law that Joyce, which relied on the "clearly established" prong of the qualified immunity paradigm, left

Barham, Jeffrey v. Ramsey, Charles H.

434 F.3d 565 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jan 13, 2006

established constitutional rights, thus stripping appellants of any qualified immunity. … Assistant Chief Newsham’s Claim to Qualified Immunity “Qualified immunity protects government officials ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional

Central Specialties, Inc. v. Jonathan Large

18 F.4th 989 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Nov 24, 2021

We thus find that there was no clearly established right, and we therefore conclude that the district court properly granted summary judgment to Large on the basis of qualified immunity. … We have “held that an official acting outside the clearly established ‘scope of his discretionary authority is not entitled to claim qualified immunity under § 1983.’” Johnson v.

Stephen L. Bartlett v. Colonel C.E. Fisher Captain S.T. Davis

972 F.2d 911 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Aug 13, 1992

Under this objective standard, public officials are entitled to qualified immunity when their “conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. … The district court denied their qualified immunity motion because defendants’ motive in disciplining Bartlett is a disputed issue of fact and the law is “clearly established” that a public employee may not be disciplined

Sinn v. Lemmon

911 F.3d 412 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Dec 14, 2018

Qualified immunity is an affirmative defense, and once raised, the plaintiff bears the burden of defeating it by showing: (1) the defendant violated a constitutional right, and (2) that right was clearly established at the … It is well-settled, clearly established law that such a failure constitutes deliberate indifference. See id. at 484-85 (rejecting a qualified immunity defense).

Richardson v. Chevrefils

131 N.H. 227 · Supreme Court of New Hampshire · Dec 12, 1988

Fitzgerald, supra at 818 , a defendant is entitled to immunity unless his actions violated “legal norms . . . clearly established at the time of the challenged actions,” Mitchell v. … Nonetheless, inquiries into immunity and into the sufficiency of a complaint obviously overlap considerably, and a complaint that clearly fails to state a claim need hardly be the subject of a subtle enquiry into qualified

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.

Saleem v. Snow

217 Ga. App. 883 · Court of Appeals of Georgia · Jul 14, 1995

Qualified immunity shields state officials from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate *886 clearly established federal law of which a reasonable person would have known. Harlow v. … These include his claims that qualified immunity was improperly granted because it is clearly established that (1) he has a right to be fairly considered for parole; (2) rules prohibiting actions must provide adequate notice

John Dee Carruth v. Robert J. Bentley

942 F.3d 1047 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Nov 7, 2019

Since there is no clearly established law establishing that Carruth’s alleged differential treatment violated the Equal Protection Clause, Bentley and Byrne are entitled to qualified immunity. … It is Carruth’s burden to establish that Byrne and Bentley are not entitled to qualified immunity and he has not met it.

Ronald A. Mahers v. Charles Harper Ken Wittry Ronald Welder Paul W. Grossheim

12 F.3d 783 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Feb 1, 1994

Defendants argue that even if the due process violation found by the state court is taken as a given, the right violated was not clearly established, and therefore they are entitled to qualified immunity. We agree. … In proceeding under Rule 9, defendants acted in an objectively reasonable manner, and they'did not violate any clearly established constitutional right. They are entitled to qualified immunity.

Montoya v. Vigil

898 F.3d 1056 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Aug 7, 2018

in the proceedings against him, he only argues the statements’ use at trial violated his clearly established Fifth Amendment rights. … these issues, we find it unnecessary to address whether the Detectives’ interrogation tactics were actually coercive under clearly established law

Bacon v. Phelps

961 F.3d 533 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jun 8, 2020

There are therefore two steps to the qualified immunity analysis: first, 15 whether the plaintiff established that his constitutional rights were violated, and 16 second, whether the right at issue was “clearly established … It did not. 6 The right therefore was not “clearly established” and the defendants hence are 7 entitled to qualified immunity. See Burns v.

Michael Rivera v. Kevin Monko

37 F.4th 909 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jun 15, 2022

Instead, the court jumped straight to the “clearly established” prong of the qualified immunity analysis. … The Majority Opinion recognizes that such a right is not clearly established, and on that basis, it grants qualified immunity to two prison guards who were sued by an inmate for violating that right.

Millard L. Swenson v. Myrna Trickey Larry Trickey Captain Fred Arflack

995 F.2d 132 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Aug 17, 1993

A right is “clearly established” for qualified immunity purposes if [t]he contours of the right [are] sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that right. … We conclude that defendants are entitled to qualified immunity because neither of these issues was clearly established in February 1986. A. Did Swenson Have a Liberty Interest?

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.

Whitten v. Wooten

295 Ga. App. 281 · Court of Appeals of Georgia · Dec 1, 2008

Qualified immunity gives government officials performing discretionary functions complete protection from individual claims brought pursuant to 42 USC § 1983 , if their conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory … She claims the force was excessive and violated clearly established constitutional rights under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments.