Case law

Johnson v. Boreani

946 F.2d 67 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Sep 26, 1991

Government officials who are sued for damages under § 1983 for their performance of discretionary functions are entitled to a qualified immunity defense if they prove that their conduct “does not violate clearly established … Because in most cases it is easier for a § 1983 defendant to establish qualified immunity than to defend against the alleged constitutional violation, and because our remand had expressly left the qualified immunity issue

Lopera v. Town of Coventry

640 F.3d 388 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · May 20, 2011

The Doctrine of Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity “protects government officials ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … A finding that a right was not clearly established at the time of the alleged violation is sufficient to warrant a finding of qualified immunity. See Pearson, 129 S.Ct. at 822 .

Poolaw v. Marcantel

565 F.3d 721 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · May 4, 2009

Concluding that these Fourth Amendment principles were clearly established when the incidents occurred, the court denied qualified immunity. Marcantel and Hix now appeal. … City of Las Cruces, 523 F.3d 1205, 1211-12 (10th Cir.2008) (“[T]he clearly established weight of authority from other courts” establishes a right for the purposes of qualified immunity.).

Africa v. City of Philadelphia

809 F. Supp. 375 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 8, 1992

“Whether an official may prevail in his qualified immunity defense depends upon the ‘objective reasonableness of [his] conduct as measured by reference to clearly established law’.” Davis v. … “clearly established” law and the information he possessed at that time.

Grissom v. Roberts

902 F.3d 1162 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Aug 29, 2018

that would be decisive under clearly established law, we are compelled to hold that the Prison Officials are entitled to qualified immunity on his due-process claim.3 IV. … To overcome the defense of qualified immunity, however, Grissom must point to clearly established law. See Thomson, 584 F.3d at 1312. That, he has failed to do.

Mills v. City of Shreveport

58 F. Supp. 3d 677 · District Court, W.D. Louisiana · Sep 30, 2014

Qualified immunity shields government officials from liability in their performance of discretionary functions, unless their conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right.' See Ontiveros v. … clearly established right.

Yamaha Motor Manufacturing Corp. of America v. Kentucky, Finance & Administration Cabinet

403 F. Supp. 2d 601 · District Court, W.D. Kentucky · May 10, 2005

Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, “governmental officials performing discretionary functions are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or … If the law was not clearly established, the defendants may be protected from suit by qualified immunity as they could not have known that their conduct was illegal or unconstitutional.

Morrison v. Board of Trustees of Green Tp.

583 F.3d 394 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Oct 8, 2009

This right was “clearly established” for qualified immunity purposes at the time of Amanda’s seizure on October 30, 2002. See id. at 641 . … Violation of Clearly Established Right Officer Celender finally argues that he is entitled to qualified immunity, even if he *408 violated Amanda’s constitutional rights, because it was not clearly established at the time

Reyes v. Fischer

934 F.3d 97 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Aug 9, 2019

violated clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known." … Government officials performing discretionary functions generally are afforded qualified immunity, and are therefore "shielded from liability for civil damages" when "their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory

Kevin O'ROuRke v. Smithsonian Institution Press and the Smithsonian Institution, Docket No. 04-0151-Cv

399 F.3d 113 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Feb 16, 2005

O’Rourke pointed out that the Smithsonian was created as an independent establishment of the United States, citing 20 U.S.C. *116 § 41, and that § 1498(b) does not mention establishments, or trust instrumentalities, of the … Prior to 1960, however, the United States had not waived its sovereign immunity from suits for copyright infringement, and the result was, “inequitabl[y],” that government employees — who could not claim sovereign immunity

McCranie v. Gavinski

District Court, D. Colorado · Sep 24, 2024

Defendants provide no legal authority in support of their proposition that clearly established law for qualified immunity must originate from a case at the same procedural posture. … was clearly established”). Accordingly, the Court finds that Sergeant Acuna and Sergeant Gutierrez are entitled to qualified immunity on plaintiff’s first claim.

Swint v. City Of Wadley

51 F.3d 988 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · May 9, 1995

by ... clearly-established law." … Because such a due process right was not clearly established at the time of the raids in this case, Sheriff Morgan, Chief Morgan and Officer Dendinger are entitled to qualified immunity on the due process claims.

Early v. Crockett

436 S.W.3d 141 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jun 19, 2014

“Under the standard of qualified immunity articulated in Harlow v. … “The more critical inquiry for qualified-immunity purposes is whether it was ‘objectively legally reasonable’ for the prison officials to believe that [their] conduct did not violate the inmate’s clearly established Eighth

Krein v. Norris

309 F.3d 487 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Oct 16, 2002

not specifically and conclusively ruled on the issue of qualified immunity. … holding that "plaintiff has asserted the violation of a constitutional right [and] the right is clearly established."

MIMICS, Inc. v. Village of Angel Fire

394 F.3d 836 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jan 3, 2005

Usually, if the law was clearly established at the time of the relevant events, the qualified immunity defense will fail. Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818-19 (1982). … Id. at 934. 8 The purpose of requiring the law to be clearly established in qualified immunity determinations is so state officials have fair notice that their conduct is unconstitutional.

Mountain Pure v. Cynthia Roberts

814 F.3d 928 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Feb 25, 2016

"Qualified immunity protects government 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 … Moreover, Mountain Pure -5- cites no authority showing that the agents violated its clearly established rights as it must to overcome a defense of qualified immunity.

Rico v. Ducart

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jan 27, 2026

The district court properly dismissed Rico’s action because defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. See Cuevas v. … of their conduct was clearly established at the time.”

Heard v. Bear

District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · Feb 6, 2020

Federal law as determined by [the] Supreme Court of the United States,” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1);3 (2) “resulted in a decision that . . . involved an unreasonable application of clearly established Federal law,” id.; or … Significantly, an “unreasonable application of” clearly established federal law under § 2254(d)(1) “must be objectively unreasonable, not merely wrong.” White v. Woodall, 134 S.

Gould v. Symons

275 F. Supp. 2d 843 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Jul 18, 2003

entitled to qualified immunity from suit. … established principle of law and, therefore, the defendants were not entitled to qualified immunity.

Braun v. Maynard

652 F.3d 557 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Jul 21, 2011

Previous cases need not be on all fours with the current one to clearly establish the law for qualified immunity purposes. See Amaechi v. West, 237 F.3d 356, 362-63 (4th Cir. 2001). … In the qualified immunity context, these factors counsel against hastily concluding that the law clearly forbade the officers’ conduct.