Case law

George E. Apostol v. Eliot Landau, Mark Gallion, and Chris Haloulos

957 F.2d 339 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jun 8, 1992

precluded from asserting the qualified immunity defense. … We first examine whether as a matter of law officers Gallion and Haloulos are entitled to qualified immunity because their conduct during the search of Apostol’s office violated clearly established rights.

Hynson v. City of Chester

827 F.2d 932 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Oct 1, 1987

The test for government officials to establish the good faith necessary for qualified immunity was recently set out by the Supreme Court. … clearly established at the time of the conduct at issue.

Jones v. Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department

873 F.3d 1123 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Oct 20, 2017

Clearly Established Law - Because defendants may have committed constitutional violations, we turn to the second element of' qualified immunity: whether there was clearly established law. Defendants rely on Brooks v. … qualified immunity).

Alison Dreith v. City of St. Louis, Missouri

55 F.4th 1145 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Dec 15, 2022

Qualified immunity shields government officials from suit in a § 1983 action unless their conduct violates a clearly established statutory or constitutional right of which a reasonable official would have known. … In any event, the argument does not undermine the district court’s conclusion that Dreith’s right to be free from a retaliatory use of force was clearly established at the time of the incident. D. Ct.

Johnson v. Newburgh Enlarged School District

239 F.3d 246 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jan 31, 2001

In this action, the defendants assert only the first basis — that no clearly established right was violated — in arguing for qualified immunity. 2 Of course, determining whether a right is “clearly established” is not subject … ” qualified immunity issue.

McCullough Ex Rel. McCullough v. Antolini

559 F.3d 1201 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Feb 26, 2009

The Supreme Court recently reaffirmed the long-established standard for qualified immunity in Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. _, No. 07-751 (Jan. 21, 2009). … , and, second, that it was clearly established at the time of the incident that the actions of the defendant were unconstitutional.

Kvech v. New Mexico Department of Public Safety

987 F. Supp. 2d 1162 · District Court, D. New Mexico · Nov 30, 2013

established prong of the qualified immunity analysis. … Clearly Established Rights in the Qualified Immunity Analysis.

Palmer v. Johnson

193 F.3d 346 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Oct 19, 1999

The bifurcated test for qualified immunity asks whether the plaintiff has alleged a violation of a clearly established right and, if so, whether the defendant’s conduct was objectively unreasonable. … Thus, for purposes of the qualified immunity analysis, Palmer has demonstrated a violation of his clearly established rights under the Eighth Amendment.

J.P. v. County of Alameda

District Court, N.D. California · Nov 19, 2021

See Shafer, 868 F.3d at 1117 (holding that 2 qualified immunity applies if no clearly established law exists on the issue); see also White v. Pauly, 137 S. … City of Santa Maria, 915 F.3d 12 592, 603 (9th Cir. 2019) (“[O]ur qualified immunity determination with respect to Officer Brice rests 13 solely on the ‘clearly established’ law prong; we do not reach the question of whether

Moyler v. Fannin

District Court, W.D. Virginia · Mar 16, 2023

Qualified immunity “protects government officials from liability for civil damages, provided that their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights within the knowledge of a … Fulford, 987 F.3d 299, 311 (4th Cir. 2021) (“The burden of establishing a qualified immunity defense rests on the official asserting the defense.”).

Ratliff v. DeKalb County, GA

62 F.3d 338 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 9, 1995

court assumed for the purposes of its decision about whether the applicable law was clearly established. … The right to be free from retaliation is clearly established as a first amendment right and as a statutory right under Title VII; but no clearly established right exists under the equal protection clause to be free from

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.’”

Harris v. Roderick

126 F.3d 1189 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Sep 25, 1997

In order to determine whether the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity, we engage in a two-pronged inquiry: “1) Was the law governing the official’s conduct clearly established? … The Rules directly infringed on the clearly established constitutional rights of those at whom they were aimed, including Harris. There is no qualified immunity for such conduct, either.

L.G. v. Keisha Edwards

990 F.3d 1145 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Mar 18, 2021

Qualified immunity generally protects public officials from § 1983 lawsuits where the officials' conduct "does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known … We often describe the resolution of a qualified immunity issue as involving two questions—whether the official's conduct violated a constitutional or statutory right, and whether that right was clearly established.

Edwards v. Alabama Department of Corrections

81 F. Supp. 2d 1242 · District Court, M.D. Alabama · Jan 14, 2000

Where the law that the defendants allegedly violated was not clearly established at *1252 the time of the alleged offense, the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. Id. at 807 , 102 S.Ct. at 2732 ; Stewart v. … The Supreme Court has set forth a two-part test for evaluating the second qualified-immunity consideration, whether the defendants’ actions violated clearly established , statutory or constitutional law.

Bernstein v. Roberts

405 F. Supp. 2d 34 · District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 20, 2005

The Court held that this principle was clearly established so as to preclude the granting of qualified immunity. … Obviously, the legal principles the Supreme Court held were "clearly established," in 1997 are equally clearly established for the qualified immunity analysis in this case. 5 .

Holland Ex Rel. Overdorff v. Harrington

268 F.3d 1179 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Oct 19, 2001

entitled to qualified immunity. … "An order denying summary judgment based on qualified immunity necessarily involves a legal determination that certain alleged actions violate clearly established law.”

Ecclesiastical Order of the Ism of Am, Inc. v. Chasin

845 F.2d 113 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 18, 1988

clearly established law and the information the official possessed. 483 U.S. at -, 107 S.Ct. at 3040 , 97 L.Ed.2d at 532 . … Applying this standard of qualified immunity, the district court correctly found that none of the actions taken by the defendants violated any of the plaintiffs’ clearly established constitutional or statutory rights.

Courtney Adams v. Blount Cty., Tenn.

946 F.3d 940 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jan 8, 2020

standard and violated Edwards’s clearly established rights. … Defendant Burns asserts “the defense of qualified immunity, which shields government officials from ‘liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights

Fauser v. Memphis Housing Authority

780 F. Supp. 1168 · District Court, W.D. Tennessee · Sep 17, 1991

Once the issue of qualified immunity is raised, plaintiff must identify the clearly established law and present facts which, if true, demonstrate that the defendants’ conduct violated clearly established law. … on the basis of defendant’s qualified immunity is whether the defendant “violated” those clearly established rights.