Case law

Darrin Gruenberg v. Debra Gempeler

697 F.3d 573 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Sep 26, 2012

To defeat a claim of qualified immunity, Gruenberg must show that the defendants violated a constitutional right and demonstrate that the right in question was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation. … Thus, when analyzing a qualified immunity defense, courts consider whether the alleged facts demonstrate a constitutional violation, and whether the constitu- tional right was clearly established. Pearson v.

Jean-Gabriel Bernier v. Jeff Allen

38 F.4th 1145 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jul 5, 2022

Allen’s decision violated no clearly established Eighth Amendment right, we hold that the doctor is entitled to qualified immunity from Bernier’s damages claim. … Nevertheless, the majority rests its conclusion on the clearly established prong of qualified immunity.

Valdez v. Roybal

186 F. Supp. 3d 1197 · District Court, D. New Mexico · May 12, 2016

Clearly Established Rights in the Qualified Immunity Analysis. … The Law Was Not Clearly Established and Roybal and Placencio are Entitled to Qualified Immunity.

Cole Spencer v. Aaron Pew

117 F.4th 1130 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Sep 16, 2024

As to this force, the panel affirmed the district court’s grant of qualified immunity based solely on the second, “clearly established law” prong of the qualified immunity test. … The district court concluded that Officers Pew and Rozema were shielded by qualified immunity because no clearly established law prohibited the degree of force they used in arresting Spencer.

Beatrice Luna v. Texas Department of Pub Sf

773 F.3d 712 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Dec 19, 2014

Discussion The doctrine of qualified immunity shields “government officials performing discretionary functions. . . from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … Clearly Established Law Under the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis, plaintiffs must show that Mullenix’s actions violated a constitutional right that was sufficiently clearly established.

Jesse Redmond v. Isaac Fulwood, Jr.

859 F.3d 11 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jun 9, 2017

Qualified immunity shields federal and state officials from suits for money damages unless a plaintiff shows both that (i) the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (ii) that right was “clearly established … Fourth, Fulwood is entitled to qualified immunity for Redmond’s allegation of bias arising from the nature of his crime because there is no clearly established right for parole- eligible prisoners to be treated equally in

Mark Campbell v. Cheatham County Sheriff's Dep't

47 F.4th 468 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 29, 2022

Therefore, we turn to whether the right was clearly established. 3 An officer is not entitled to qualified immunity if he violates a constitutional right … “The doctrine of qualified immunity shields officials from civil liability so long as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”

Caron Nazario v. Joe Gutierrez

103 F.4th 213 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · May 31, 2024

On the second prong of qualified immunity, i.e., the clearly established issue, we agree with the district court that Crocker is entitled to qualified immunity because his conduct did not violate a clearly … The court, however, ruled that the Policemen were entitled to qualified immunity under its second prong, that is, the clearly established requirement.

Ogborn v. City of Lancaster

124 Cal. Rptr. 2d 238 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 22, 2002

The Individual Defendants Are Entitled to Qualified Governmental Immunity. … This immunity provision bars the Ogborns’ claim for trespassing because the warrant clearly authorized entry onto the Property and into the structures located there.

Ermini v. Scott

249 F. Supp. 3d 1253 · District Court, M.D. Florida · Apr 6, 2017

Even if shooting plaintiff was a violation of the Fourth Amendment, Deputy Hamer is entitled to qualified immunity unless plaintiff establishes that Deputy Hamer violated a constitutional right that was “clearly established … The Fourth Amendment right was not clearly established in the specific context of this case. Therefore, even if plaintiffs Fourth Amendment right was violated, Deputy Hamer is entitled to qualified immunity. D.

Nat'l Rifle Ass'n of Am. v. Vullo

Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jul 17, 2025

Vullo argues that she is entitled to qualified immunity, but the NRA maintains that she violated clearly established law prohibiting coercion or retaliation violative of the First Amendment. … But under the qualified immunity analysis, general pronouncements of law are not sufficient to "clearly establish" a right.

Brown v. Benefield

757 F. Supp. 2d 1165 · District Court, M.D. Alabama · Sep 29, 2010

The Eleventh Circuit recognizes three ways that a right may be clearly established for qualified immunity purposes: (1) case law with indistinguishable facts clearly establishes the constitutional right, (2) a broad statement … If this is not clearly established, then the Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity at this stage of the case.

Paul Mollica v. James A. Volker

229 F.3d 366 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Oct 6, 2000

For a constitutional right to be “clearly established” for purposes of determining whether an officer is entitled to qualified immunity, the contours of the right must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would … whether the right is clearly established).

Schlicher v. Board of Fire & Police Commissioners

Appellate Court of Illinois · Mar 6, 2006

The Supreme Court has explained the concept of a "clearly established" constitutional right in the context of a qualified immunity claim as follows: " '[C]learly established' for purposes of qualified immunity means … Because "it is well established that the qualified immunity doctrine does not apply to official capacity claims" (Ruffino v.

Roberts v. City of Forest Acres

902 F. Supp. 662 · District Court, D. South Carolina · Aug 21, 1995

not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … The touchstone of qualified immunity is the “ ‘objective legal reasonableness’ of the [officer’s] action assessed in light of the legal rules that were ‘clearly established’ at the time it was taken.”

Waldon v. Borough of Upper Darby

77 F. Supp. 2d 655 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 9, 1999

The officers are entitled to qualified immunity from suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 if their conduct did not violate a clearly established statutory or constitutional right of Plaintiffs, of which a reasonable officer would … A qualified immunity claim is ordinarily decided by first determining whether a violation of a constitutional or statutory right is alleged, and then next determining whether that right was clearly established and would have

Crosby v. Paulk

187 F.3d 1339 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Sep 10, 1999

Qualified immunity protects government officials who have acted within their discretionary authority from civil trials and other litigation burdens "if their conduct violates no 'clearly established statutory or constitutional … With these guiding precepts governing entitlement to qualified immunity, we examine the circumstances under which Sheriff Paulk, Commander Winningham, Agent Griffin, and Agent Kendrick acted in view of clearly established

Whitney v. City of Milan

677 F.3d 292 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 24, 2012

Crider appeals the district court’s order which denied his motion for summary judgment on the basis that he violated a clearly established constitutional right, and as such, is not entitled to qualified immunity. … Qualified Immunity on a Prior-Restraint Claim Government officials are immune from civil liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 when performing discretionary duties, provided “their conduct does not violate clearly established

Napier v. Town of Windham

187 F.3d 177 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Aug 6, 1999

There are two prongs to the qualified immunity analysis. The first prong is whether the constitutional right in question was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation. See Swain v. … Finding that no such duty was clearly established at the time of the incident, we held that the officers were entitled to qualified immunity. See id. at 28.

Lawlor v. Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago

District Court, N.D. Illinois · Mar 30, 2019

Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 243 (2009) (holding that officers were entitled to qualified immunity where they “did not violate clearly established law”). … to qualified immunity on Plaintiffs’ Wiretap Act claim.