Case law

Jamal Stephenson v. John Doe

332 F.3d 68 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jun 13, 2003

The court indicated that, depending on the jury's answers to the interrogatories, he might have to "decide whether the law was clearly established and whether qualified immunity would attach." … The court later emphasized that this law was clearly established for purposes of qualified immunity.

Dill v. City of Edmond

155 F.3d 1193 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Aug 28, 1998

Qualified Immunity Defendants argue that the district court erred in denying Vetter qualified immunity. Our analysis of the qualified immunity defense is two-pronged. … In this case, because Vetter’s qualified immunity was predicated on the basis that the law was not clearly established, qualified immunity does not shield the City of Edmond.

Hanson v. Sangamon County Sheriff's Department

991 F. Supp. 1059 · District Court, C.D. Illinois · Jan 28, 1998

Qualified immunity shields government officials who are performing discretionary functions from liability for civil damages “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights … Thus, Sheriff Williamson asserts that he is protected by qualified immunity because there were no clearly established constitutional standards on the date when the alleged violations occurred.

Brett Kohorst v. Thomas Smith

968 F.3d 871 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Aug 6, 2020

Officer Smith’s actions, while a close call, did not violate a clearly established right and the district court did not err in granting qualified immunity. B. … Because a jury could reasonably conclude that Smith violated Kohorst’s clearly established right to be free from excessive force during the initial takedown, Smith is not entitled to qualified immunity on this claim.

Hartsfield v. Lemacks

50 F.3d 950 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jun 14, 1995

This court utilizes a two-part analysis for the defense of qualified immunity. … In Lassiter, we explained that for law to be clearly established in the qualified immunity context, “pre-existing law must dictate, that is truly compel (not just suggest or allow or raise a question about), the conclusion

Richard Clemons v. John Couch

3 F.4th 897 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 7, 2021

CLEARLY ESTABLISHED RIGHT In the second step of our qualified-immunity analysis, we must determine whether Richard’s constitutional right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation. … Under the clearly established prong of qualified immunity, a constitutional violation must be so clearly established by existing precedent that “every reasonable official would interpret it to establish the particular rule

James W. Smoak v. Eric Hall, David Bush Jeff Phann Tim McHood Brian Brock Jerry Andrews, Lieutenant

460 F.3d 768 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 25, 2006

A right is “clearly established” for qualified immunity purposes when the contours of the right are sufficiently clear, even if the specific action in question has never been held unlawful. See Sample, 409 F.3d at 698 . … established at the time as to deny the defendants the benefits of qualified immunity.

Julia Correia v. Glenn Jones

943 F.3d 845 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Nov 27, 2019

“Qualified immunity shields officials from civil liability in § 1983 actions when their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … “Qualified immunity analysis requires courts to determine whether (1) the plaintiff has alleged or shown a violation of a constitutional right, and (2) the right was clearly established at the time of the defendants’ alleged

Chariell Glaze v. Gary Andrews

721 F.3d 528 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jul 19, 2013

An official is entitled to qualified immunity unless the facts alleged establish a violation of a constitutional or statutory right, and that right was clearly established at the time of the violation. Pearson v. … There is no admissible evidence to establish that Andrews knew about a substantial risk to Glaze’s safety. Andrews is thus entitled to qualified immunity.

Betances v. Fischer

144 F. Supp. 3d 441 · District Court, S.D. New York · Aug 6, 2015

Qualified Immunity “Qualified immunity shields government officials from civil damages liability unless the official violated a statutory or constitutional right that was clearly established at the time of the challenged … Qualified Immunity This Court has previously held that defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity. 63 Defendants had argued that plaintiffs’ constitutional rights were not “clearly established” at the time those rights

Blevins v. Denny

114 N.C. App. 766 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · May 17, 1994

Similarly, the Court concluded that denial of a public official’s claim of qualified immunity from suit, to the extent that it turns on the legal questions of whether the conduct complained of violated “clearly established … In Mitchell , the United States Supreme Court went on to explain that entitlement [to qualified immunity] is an immunity from suit rather than a mere defense to liability; and like an absolute immunity, it is effectively

Argueta v. Jaradi

94 F.4th 475 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Feb 29, 2024

Because of the disputed facts, and the clearly established law preventing officers from using deadly force after incapacitating an individual, the officer was precluded from qualified immunity. Id. at 339. … are material to the application of qualified immunity.

James T. Martin, Jr. v. D.C. Metropolitan Police Department, Richard Xander, James T. Martin, Jr. v. D.C. Metropolitan Police Department, Richard Xander

812 F.2d 1425 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · May 8, 1987

(footnotes omitted); Mitchell, 105 S.Ct. at 2816 (defendant entitled to dismissal on qualified immunity plea unless plaintiff states a claim of violation of clearly established law). … Harlow, 457 U.S. at 817-18 , 102 S.Ct. at 2738 . 23 The "clearly established law" and "objective reasonableness" facets of current qualified immunity doctrine tug in opposite directions where, as here, the "clearly established

Flint ex rel. Flint v. Kentucky Department of Corrections

270 F.3d 340 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Oct 26, 2001

The affirmative defense of qualified immunity shields “government officials performing discretionary functions ... from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate ‘clearly established’ statutory … violating a clearly established right of Flint’s.

Thomas Bowden v. Vernon Martin

807 F.3d 877 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Aug 25, 2015

Public officials are immune from suit if “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. … We need not address the separate question of whether any infringed right was clearly established, although we note that the qualified immunity inquiry is not identical to the question of probable cause: an official enjoys

Grady v. Becker

907 F. Supp. 2d 975 · District Court, D. Minnesota · Nov 13, 2012

Qualified immunity principles Qualified immunity insulates government officials from suit when “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have … These cases simply highlight that the law in the Eighth Circuit was not clearly established prior to Chambers . Cf.

Minnis v. Board of Supervisors of Louisiana State University & Agricultural & Mechanical College

972 F. Supp. 2d 878 · District Court, M.D. Louisiana · Sep 18, 2013

To achieve this balance, qualified immunity shields government officials from liability when they perform discretionary functions provided that their conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … immunity because they do not clearly violate any of Minnis’s constitutional rights.

Blaylock v. Schwinden

862 F.2d 1352 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Sep 7, 1988

Moreover, plaintiffs were clearly seeking damages from the public treasury. … A state indemnification statute does not automatically extend immunity to state officials. See Demery v.

Burdeshaw v. Snell

350 F. Supp. 2d 944 · District Court, M.D. Alabama · Jun 4, 2004

Federal Claims and Qualified Immunity 1. General Principles Snell has pled the affirmative defense of qualified immunity. … Under the second prong, the court must determine whether the applicable law was clearly established at the time of the challenged action, that is, whether the defendant would have violated a clearly established right under

Contreras v. Dona Ana County Board

965 F.3d 1114 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jul 20, 2020

So I join Chief Judge Tymkovich’s opinion as far as it addresses the “clearly established” prong of the qualified immunity analysis. … A court holds, as the Eleventh Circuit did, that the officer is entitled to qualified immunity because his actions did not violate any clearly established rights. See Corbitt v.