Case law

Falkner v. Houston

974 F. Supp. 757 · District Court, D. Nebraska · Mar 6, 1997

The only issue to be decided by the court “is purely a legal one: whether the facts alleged (by the plaintiff, or, in some cases, the defendant) support a claim of violation of clearly established law.” … For the right to be clearly established, “[t]he 'contours' of the right must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that right ...

Iris Violeta Valiente v. Hon. Ramon Luis Rivera, Etc.

966 F.2d 21 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Jun 5, 1992

Claiming qualified immunity, defendant moved for . summary judgment. … As it was not clearly established at that time that such personnel actions, even if politically motivated, violated the constitution, defendant mayor is entitled to quali *24 fied immunity from damages liability with respect

Louise Arnold v. Charles McClinton

112 F.4th 598 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Aug 14, 2024

“In a § 1983 action, an officer is entitled to qualified immunity unless: (1) the officer’s conduct violated a constitutional right, and (2) that right was clearly established.” Ching ex rel. Jordan v. … In these circumstances, we conclude that Deputy McClinton is entitled to qualified immunity because his conduct in this case did not violate McDaniel’s clearly established rights. See Plumhoff v.

Dettelis v. Sharbaugh

919 F.3d 161 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Mar 20, 2019

Instead, we conclude that qualified immunity bars Dettelis’s claim. 4  As a general matter, probation officers are entitled to immunity in the performance of … App’x 83, 84 (2d Cir. 2008) (holding state parole officer entitled to qualified immunity in filing parole violation charges).

Gallegos v. City & County of Denver

984 F.2d 358 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jan 20, 1993

that the defendant’s alleged actions violated clearly established law. … As stated above, government officials are entitled to a grant of qualified immunity unless their conduct violates “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”

Electric Fetus Co. v. City of Duluth

547 N.W.2d 448 · Court of Appeals of Minnesota · May 14, 1996

State 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.” Harlow v. … Unless the plaintiffs allegations state a claim of violation of clearly established law, a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal before commencement of discovery. Mitchell v.

Good v. Curtis

601 F.3d 393 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Mar 23, 2010

immunity defense if he procures false identification by unlawful means . . . for such activity violates clearly established constitutional principles.” 849 F.2d at 1559. … in light of clearly established law.”

Degenhardt v. Bintliff

117 F.4th 747 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Sep 24, 2024

There is a two-part test to overcoming qualified immunity. … The question, then, is whether such right is sufficiently established to defeat qualified immunity. See Argueta, 86 F.4th at 1088. We conclude that the answer is “no.”

Rios v. Scott

100 F. App'x 270 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jun 3, 2004

PER CURIAM:* Joshua Rio s and Mary Canales (“the Relatives”) appeal from the district court’s grant of summary judgment based on qualified immunity. … Officer Sippel is entitled to qualified immunity because there is no clearly established constitutional right for an officer to immediately intervene when an armed inmate attacks another inmate, as the officer may need

Debbie Latits v. Lowell Phillips

878 F.3d 541 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Dec 27, 2017

Whether that Right was Clearly Established Even if Officer Phillips violated Latits’s constitutional right, he is entitled to qualified immunity if that right was not clearly established at the time of the violation—June … Thus, this case fails to satisfy the “clearly established” prong of the qualified immunity doctrine. III.

Frederick Jackson v. City of Madison

Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · May 28, 2026

We reiterate that to defeat qualified immunity, a plaintiff must point us to law that is established clearly enough “that every reasonable official would interpret it to establish the particular rule the plaintiff seeks to … Officers are entitled to qualified immunity unless “(1) they violated a federal stat- utory or constitutional right, and (2) the unlawfulness of their conduct was ‘clearly established at the time.’”

Bledsoe v. Willis

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Nov 27, 2023

An officer is entitled to qualified immunity “if there is no violation, or if the conduct did not violate law clearly established at the time.” Id. … Nov. 16, 2022) (rejecting the qualified immunity defense regarding clearly established law for § 1983 malicious prosecution claims); Crider v. Williams, No. 21-13797, 2022 WL 3867541, at *8 (11th Cir.

Wilkins v. City of Tulsa

33 F.4th 1265 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · May 3, 2022

The officers invoked qualified immunity, arguing they did not violate Mr. Wilkins’s Fourth Amendment rights and that his rights were not clearly established. … Wilkins’s clearly established right to be free from the additional use of force after he was effectively subdued. The officers were not entitled to qualified immunity.

S.L. Ex Rel. Lenderman v. St. Louis Metropolitan Police Department Board of Police Commissioners

725 F.3d 843 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Aug 5, 2013

State officials enjoy qualified immunity from a § 1983 action if their conduct did not violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. … Harris is entitled to qualified immunity if his conduct did not violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known,” Harlow, 457 U.S. at 818 , 102 S.Ct. 2727 , but

Rodgers v. Horsley

39 F.3d 308 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Dec 5, 1994

DISCUSSION Once the qualified immunity defense is raised, the plaintiff bears the burden of showing that the federal “rights” allegedly violated were “clearly established.” Barts v. … Instead, the question in this case, as in all qualified immunity cases, is fact specific: in May 1991, was it clearly established in this circuit that it was unconstitutional for a mental institution to fail to supervise

Baltas v. Chapdelaine

Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Sep 3, 2025

DISCUSSION Plaintiffs argue that Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity because they violated clearly established law. … Our caselaw does not clearly establish that a few hours without a flushing toilet violates the Eighth Amendment, so we affirm the grant of qualified immunity as to these claims. C.

Brockway v. Shepherd

942 F. Supp. 1012 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 4, 1996

III.QUALIFIED IMMUNITY A defendant is entitled to qualified immunity from a claim of a violation of a constitutional right if the right was not clearly established at the time of the alleged deprivation and the contours of … WMe the abstract right to be free from unreasonable seizure clearly is established, for qualified immunity purposes the right must be considered on a more specific level: “[t]he contours of the right must be sufficiently

Cucuta v. New York City

25 F. Supp. 3d 400 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jul 3, 2014

(see cases cited at page 414 above), defendants alternatively are entitled to the protection of qualified immunity because the law is not clearly established and their actions were objectively reasonable. … The Officers are Entitled to Quali-fíed Immunity for the Ping of Cucuta’s Cell Phone Defendants also are entitled to qualified immunity for the pinging of Cueuta’s cell phone because the law is not clearly established and

Carlson v. County of Hennepin

428 N.W.2d 453 · Court of Appeals of Minnesota · Aug 23, 1988

A subsequent motion to dismiss the individual defendants on the basis of qualified immunity was granted. … is no qualified immunity.

Janice Brown v. Andrew Knapp

75 F.4th 638 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 28, 2023

The district court denied both motions, finding that the MSP Defendants were not entitled to qualified immunity because they had collectively violated Brown’s clearly established right to a prompt probable cause determination … We found that the officer was entitled to qualified immunity because, even if he had violated Roberson’s constitutional rights, “Riverside and its progeny [did] not clearly establish that an officer in [the trooper’s] position