Case law

Redd v. City of Enterprise

140 F.3d 1378 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · May 13, 1998

A public official is entitled to qualified immunity from a section 1983 damages action if his actions did not violate clearly established law. See Thornton 3 No appeal is taken from this holding. v. … It is clearly established that an arrest made without probable cause violates the Fourth Amendment. See Von Stein v. Brescher, 904 F.2d 572, 579 (11th Cir.1990).

Zaher Zahrey v. Martin E. Coffey

221 F.3d 342 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jul 20, 2000

not clearly established in 1996. … Anderson instructs, however, that for a right to be clearly established for purposes of a qualified immunity defense, the precise conduct at issue need not previously have been ruled unlawful.

Barbara Bays v. Montmorency Cty., Mich.

874 F.3d 264 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Oct 20, 2017

Because a triable issue of fact remains over whether Sigler violated Shane’s clearly established Fourteenth Amendment right to sufficient treatment for a serious medical problem, we affirm the district court’s qualified- … In a qualified-immunity case, we ask two questions: Did the officer violate the injured party’s constitutional rights? If so, was the right clearly established at the time? Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 232 (2009).

MCCRIMMON v. JOHNSON

District Court, D. New Jersey · Nov 30, 2022

Defendants contend they are entitled to qualified immunity because settled law does not clearly establish that four instances of the opening of legal mail over a twenty-one-month period amounts to a pattern or practice … There is a two-step inquiry into whether qualified immunity applies: (1) whether the official’s conduct violated a constitutional or federal right; and (2) whether the right at issue was clearly established.

Beverly Spencer v. Sheriff Jonathan Benison

5 F.4th 1222 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jul 16, 2021

It found that Benison was not entitled to qualified immunity on Spencer’s individual capacity claims because he “failed to establish that he was acting within the scope of his discretionary authority” when he ordered Spencer … 18-14397 Date Filed: 07/16/2021 Page: 10 of 21 “The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established

Brandy Kane v. Shawn Barger

902 F.3d 185 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Aug 22, 2018

The District Court granted summary judgment in favor of Barger, finding that—even if Barger’s conduct was unlawful—he was still immune from suit under the exacting “clearly established” prong of our qualified immunity analysis … As such, the right was clearly established for purposes of qualified immunity. III.

Carlos D. Goad and Robert J. Wuchich v. Betty Mitchell, Jacqui Visintine, and M.A. Gilbert

297 F.3d 497 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 25, 2002

Qualified Immunity and Heightened Pleading Requirements In civil suits for money damages, government officials are entitled to qualified immunity for discretionary acts that do “not violate clearly established [federal] statutory … a complaint adequately alleges violation of clearly established law.

Chalmers v. The City of Chicago

District Court, N.D. Illinois · Mar 16, 2023

established so qualified immunity applies); Singleton v. … Qualified immunity also depends on the resolution of material facts.

Fellowship of Christian Athletes v. District of Columbia

District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 3, 2026

in question . . . was clearly established.” … were clearly established.

Bingham v. City of Manhattan Beach

329 F.3d 723 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · May 19, 2003

He posits a novel twist to the “clearly established” inquiry, contending that because it is not clearly established that damages may be obtained under § 1983 for an unlawful traffic stop, qualified immunity should apply. … Rather, in determining whether qualified immunity is available, those cases merely inquire whether the right at issue was clearly established in law.

Calabretta v. Floyd

189 F.3d 808 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Aug 26, 1999

They claim qualified immunity on the ground that there is no clearly established principle to the contrary. The principle they urged is too broad. … It is not clear that a conflict among other circuits would create qualified immunity where clearly established law in this circuit would preclude it, 19 but even if it could, these cases would not establish such an open question

Francisco Cheveras Pacheco v. Juan M. Rivera Gonzalez

809 F.2d 125 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Jan 13, 1987

Defendants moved for summary judgment on the damages claim on the theory that they had not violated clearly established law and that hence they were entitled to qualified immunity. … The qualified immunity question in this case is whether it was clearly established in 1985 that a transitory employee with only a subjective expectation of permanent employment was entitled to the protections of due process

Dickerson v. Mertz

547 N.W.2d 208 · Supreme Court of Iowa · Apr 17, 1996

agents] 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....” … Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 640-41 , 107 S.Ct. 3034, 3039-40 , 97 L.Ed.2d 523, 531-32 (1987) (concluding federal bureau of investigation agent is entitled to qualified immunity from money damages lawsuit if he can establish

Williams v. Secretary Pennsylvania Department of Corrections

848 F.3d 549 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Feb 9, 2017

If the right was not clearly established, our inquiry ends and Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. … Was the Right Clearly Established?

J. Gilliam v. Kenneth Sealey

932 F.3d 216 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Jul 30, 2019

Because Appellees have alleged facts sufficient to show that the officers violated their clearly established Fourth Amendment and due process rights, we affirm the district court's denial of qualified immunity. I. A. … Qualified immunity protects government officials from liability for violations of constitutional rights so long as they could reasonably believe that their conduct did not violate clearly established law. Harlow v.

Estate Frank P. Lagano v. Bergen County Prosecutors Offi

769 F.3d 850 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Oct 15, 2014

Mordaga responded that he is entitled to qualified immunity on the state-created danger claims because the Estate failed to establish either a violation of a constitutional right, or that the constitutional right was clearly … The District Court focused on the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis, holding that the constitutional right claimed to have been violated was not clearly established at the time of Lagano’s murder.

Walker v. White

Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Oct 27, 2015

The district court dismissed on the ground that the State Defendants were entitled to qualified immunity. See Pearson v. … Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 231 (2009) (“The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional

Chapman v. Nichols

989 F.2d 393 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Mar 23, 1993

issue is not unconstitutional and that he is entitled to qualified immunity in any event because the law was not clearly established. 3 Plaintiffs respond that the policy is unconstitutional, that the law was clearly established … Two of the five cases held, as we do here, that the qualified immunity defense must fail in light of clearly established law. See Weber, 804 F.2d at 803-04 ; Jones, 770 F.2d at 742 n. 4.

Farid v. Ellen

514 F. Supp. 2d 482 · District Court, S.D. New York · Aug 15, 2007

Thus, the qualified immunity defense is available, as a matter of law, to all defendants because the right was not clearly established. … All defendants are entitled to summary judgment on the defense of qualified immunity because the right was not clearly established.

Putthoff v. Ancrum

934 S.W.2d 164 · Court of Appeals of Texas · Dec 19, 1996

In upholding the district court’s granting of the medical examiners’ motion for summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity, the court reasoned: Qualified immunity is available to government officials performing discretionary … Furthermore, the elements of official immunity and qualified immunity appear for all practical purposes to be the same.