Case law

Castillo v. Day

790 F.3d 1013 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jun 22, 2015

Both defendants moved for summary judgment, asserting they were entitled to qualified immunity. … of that doctrine to Plaintiffs’ claims is not clearly established.

Quinn v. Young

780 F.3d 998 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Mar 13, 2015

As our qualified-immunity jurisprudence permits us to do, we exercise our discretion to proceed straight to the latter question and resolve this claim on the clearly-established-law prong of our qualified-immunity test … Indeed, the Supreme Court has made clear that reciting the overarching requirement of probable cause does not pass muster in a qualified-immunity clearly-established-law assessment.

Good v. Olk-Long

71 F.3d 314 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Dec 8, 1995

This appeal follows. 4 We need only to pass upon the question of qualified immunity. … It is well settled that qualified immunity shields government officials from liability for money damages if their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable official

Gordon v. Cargor

District Court, E.D. Michigan · Aug 7, 2025

right underlying his claim is “clearly established”); Mosier v. … Evans, 90 F.4th 541, 546 (6th Cir. 2024) (explaining that for purposes of qualified immunity, a plaintiff may not identify a “clearly established” right at a high level of generality).

Beaver v. City of Federal Way

507 F. Supp. 2d 1137 · District Court, W.D. Washington · Aug 31, 2007

Qualified immunity protects § 1983 defendants from liability for civil damages if their conduct does not violate a clearly established constitutional or statutory *1148 right of which a reasonable person would have known. … Under the second prong of Saucier, the officers are entitled to qualified immunity.

Canell v. Beyers

840 F. Supp. 1378 · District Court, D. Oregon · Dec 7, 1993

The threshold determination of whether the law governing the conduct at issue is clearly established, and whether a reasonable official could have believed his conduct was lawful in light of clearly established legal principles … Qualified Immunity: Defendants contend they are entitled to qualified immunity because plaintiff has no right to be free from cross-gender searches and because prison officials have a legitimate penological purpose in conducting

John Hugh Gilmore v. City of Minneapolis

837 F.3d 827 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Sep 13, 2016

Fourth Amendment, False Arrest Claim “Qualified immunity shields government officials from liability and the burdens of litigation in a § 1983 action unless the official’s conduct violates a clearly established constitutional … qualified immunity on Gilmore’s constitutional claim.

Jerome Weinmann v. Patrick McClone

787 F.3d 444 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · May 27, 2015

constitutional right was clearly established at the time of the alleged viola- tion. … B We now turn to whether the right Jerome is asserting was clearly established at the time of the events.

Spurlock v. Satterfield

167 F.3d 995 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Feb 11, 1999

The district court, however, did review defendant Coarsey's qualified immunity argument, and concluded that solicitation of false testimony for use in prosecuting an individual violates clearly established constitutional … Thus, Satterfield is not entitled to qualified immunity for these alleged acts, because they violated the plaintiffs' clearly established constitutional rights. V.

Timothy Hall v. Blake Navarre

118 F.4th 749 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Oct 3, 2024

Again, our reasoning is limited to the clearly established component of the qualified immunity analysis. … And it is clearly established that Barr is not entitled to qualified immunity because he was “simply following orders.” See Bunkley v.

Giacalone v. Abrams

850 F.2d 79 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Aug 17, 1988

Finally, the court denied the defendants' motion to dismiss on grounds of qualified immunity, holding that the First Amendment implications of their conduct were clearly established. 3 The defendants bring this interlocutory … qualified immunity.

Randy Cole v. Michael Hunter

935 F.3d 444 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Aug 20, 2019

Garner does not formulate “clearly established law” with the degree of specificity required by the Supreme Court’s decisions on qualified immunity. … Ct. at 1776 (“Qualified immunity is no immunity at all if ‘clearly established’ law can simply be defined as the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures.”); Wilson v.

Ellen Keates v. Michael Koile

883 F.3d 1228 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Mar 6, 2018

But on the other hand, defendants are entitled to qualified immunity so long as “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … KOILE Turning to the second prong of the qualified immunity inquiry, “whether the right was clearly established,” Saucier, 533 U.S. at 201, we must determine whether it was so clear that Koile’s actions violated Keates

Gooden v. Howard County, Maryland

954 F.2d 960 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Jan 23, 1992

C. 28 Gooden further argues that the defendants did not act reasonably in light of clearly established law. … Gooden failed to violate a clearly established constitutional right.

Santana v. Cook County Board of Review

700 F. Supp. 2d 1023 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Mar 30, 2010

Commissioners and Board Employees also claim qualified immunity, which shields officials from damages liability “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a … To defeat such asserted qualified immunity a plaintiff must show 6 both (1) the violation of a constitutional right and (2) that the right was “clearly established at the time of the defendant’s misconduct” (concepts that

Melodi Navab-Safavi v. Broadcasting Board of Govenors

637 F.3d 311 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Mar 1, 2011

Legal Background Appellant’s motion for dismissal is rooted in the well- established doctrine of qualified immunity. … The Board asserts its qualified immunity, but we are unable to determine without an evidentiary record whether any act it committed in defense of those functions constituted a violation of clearly established rights, or even

Jay T. Brown v. Deputy Constable John Glossip

878 F.2d 871 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Aug 4, 1989

At the time Brown filed his complaint, the law of our Circuit pertaining to the use of excessive force by police officers was clearly established. Shillingford v. … In overcoming the qualified immunity defense, it is not enough for the plaintiff to allege that the government official violated a clearly established right in the generalized sense for that “would ... convert the rule of

Kenneth H. Swipies v. Frank Kofka

Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Nov 3, 2003

An officer is entitled to qualified immunity unless his conduct violated clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. See Harlow v. … established.

Riverdale Mills Corp. v. Pimpare

392 F.3d 55 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Dec 22, 2004

of a constitutional right; second whether the constitutional right allegedly violated was clearly established; and third whether the defendants nonetheless deserve qualified immunity because their … Layne, 526 U.S. 603, 614-15 (1999) ("It could plausibly be asserted that any violation of the Fourth Amendment is 'clearly established,' since it is clearly established that the protections of the Fourth Amendment apply

Rooks v. Santiago

District Court, D. Connecticut · Jun 1, 2021

Moreover, qualified immunity “protects government officials ‘from liability for civil damages in so far as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … Leonard, 282 F.3d 123, 134 (2d Cir. 2002) (qualified immunity requires showing that official violated clearly established law).