Case law

Youngbey v. March

676 F.3d 1114 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Apr 17, 2012

They further claim that, even if their actions are determined to be unconstitutional, they are nonetheless entitled to qualified immunity because they did not violate clearly established law. … Conclusion Appellants are entitled to qualified immunity because neither their no-knock entry of appellees’ home nor their nighttime search violated “clearly established law.”

Angie Chesser, A.K.A. Angie Kimball v. Amos Sparks, Individually and in His Official Capacity as Haralson County Commissioner

248 F.3d 1117 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Apr 18, 2000

violation of a clearly established constitutional right." … Evaluating the defense of qualified immunity involves a two step inquiry: first, whether the defendant’s conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right; and, second, whether a reasonable government official would

Key v. Grayson

179 F.3d 996 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 9, 1999

Overview The defense of qualified immunity grants government officials engaged in discretionary activities immunity from individual liability for civil damages unless their conduct violates “clearly established statutory … established prior to 1996 in order to preclude a finding of qualified immunity.

Doe Ex Rel. Doe v. State

200 Ariz. 174 · Arizona Supreme Court · May 30, 2001

The processing of a particular application in accordance with established procedures, however, does not involve the determination of fundamental governmental policy and therefore enjoys only qualified immunity under A.R.S … Second, section 12-820.02.5 accords qualified immunity to the issuance of any license “for which absolute immunity is not provided pursuant to § 12-820.01.”

Catherine Gossman v. Dr. David T. Allen Chris Gorman Irv Maze Darryl Owens and Harvey Sloane, Louisville & Jefferson County Board of Health

950 F.2d 338 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Dec 12, 1991

A government official enjoys qualified immunity if his or her conduct does not violate clearly established federal “statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. … The court’s only holding directly relating to the “clearly established” issue was that “[t]he legal rights of citizens under the first amendment to the United States Constitution were clearly established at the time plaintiff

Aisenberg v. Hillsborough County Sheriff's Office

325 F. Supp. 2d 1366 · District Court, M.D. Florida · Jul 16, 2004

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity protects a prosecutor’s discretionary acts that violate no “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … See Gonzalez, 325 F.3d at 1233-34 (qualified immunity requires dismissal of an action if the complaint “fails to allege the violation of a clearly established constitutional right”).

Aldaba v. Marshall County

777 F.3d 1148 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Feb 4, 2015

Qualified Immunity: General Policies “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 … In its sole reference to the second prong of qualified immunity—clearly established law—the district court simply noted that “[t]he reasonableness standard is clearly established for the purposes of a section 1983 action

National Black Police Association, Inc. v. Richard W. Velde

712 F.2d 569 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jun 30, 1983

The liability standard announced in Harlow entitles appellees to qualified immunity on summary judgment unless such clear duties existed. … Prior to Harlow, summary judgment on questions of qualified immunity generally required both subjective and objective determinations.

White v. Lucero

135 F.4th 1213 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Apr 28, 2025

Clearly Established Law Because courts “are free to decide which prong to address first” in the two- prong qualified immunity inquiry, we choose to begin with whether clearly established law exists that applies to … First, “[d]istrict court cases lack the precedential weight necessary to clearly establish the law for qualified immunity purposes.” Crane v. Utah Dep’t of Corr., 15 F.4th 1296, 1306 (10th Cir. 2021).

Jordan v. Carter

Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Nov 4, 2005

With such a sequential approach, the law continues to develop and become more “clearly established” over time. … Clearly Established Right The second stage of the qualified immunity inquiry requires us to determine whether the right we have identified was “‘reasonably well settled at the time of the challenged conduct,’” Mihos

Francisco v. Long

132 F.3d 42 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Dec 31, 1997

Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982) (establishing the qualified immunity defense). … In other words, once the qualified immunity defense is raised, the plaintiff has the burden of identifying a clearly established right, of which a reasonable person would have known, and alleging facts showing the defendant

Act Up!/Portland v. Bagley

988 F.2d 868 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jul 24, 1992

II QUALIFIED IMMUNITY We review a district court’s denial of a qualified immunity defense de novo. Baker v. Racansky, 887 F.2d 183, 185 (9th Cir.1989). … When a law enforcement officer asserts qualified immunity from liability for Fourth Amendment violations, the district court must determine whether, in light of clearly established principles governing the conduct in question

Thompson v. City of Monticello, Ark.

894 F.3d 993 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jul 6, 2018

“Qualified immunity shields government officials from liability in a § 1983 action unless their conduct violates a clearly established right of which a reasonable official would have known.” Id. … “A clearly established right is one that is ‘sufficiently clear that every reasonable official 2 The district court did not reach the second-prong of the qualified immunity analysis, finding that it was “

Jessica Jauch v. Choctaw County

874 F.3d 425 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Oct 24, 2017

Qualified Immunity and Sheriff Halford Sheriff Halford asserts qualified immunity. Jauch bears the burden of showing that he is not so entitled. Hanks v. Rogers, 853 F.3d 738, 744 (5th Cir. 2017). … Tellingly, Sheriff Halford’s arguments relating to qualified immunity do not even mention Jones.

E.W. v. Rosemary Dolgos

884 F.3d 172 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Feb 12, 2018

Qualified immunity shields government officials from liability in a § 1983 suit so long as their conduct did not violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known … We emphasize, however, that our excessive force holding is clearly established for any future qualified immunity cases involving similar circumstances.

Curtis Sherrod v. Dr. Arthur Johnson

667 F.3d 1359 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jan 23, 2012

clearly established law. … Qualified immunity offers complete protection for individual public officials performing discretionary functions “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which

Jewett v. Anders

521 F.3d 818 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Apr 11, 2008

a given set of facts demonstrates a violation of clearly established constitutional law. … right; (2) whether that constitutional right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation.

Wright v. Whiddon

951 F.2d 297 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jan 14, 1992

“clearly established” legal right. … In order for a right to be clearly established and defeat an official’s claim to qualified immunity, [t]he contours of the right must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing

Kenneth Bailey v. Shawn T. Swindell

89 F.4th 1324 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jan 8, 2024

In Bailey I, the district court granted summary judgment in favor of Swindell on qualified immunity grounds. … Because the law on this question is clearly established and gave Swindell fair warning that his treatment of Bailey was uncon- stitutional, Swindell was not entitled to qualified immunity and the district

Bagley v. Guillen

90 F.4th 799 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jan 10, 2024

Ho, Circuit Judge: Two established principles of law govern this qualified immunity appeal. … The district court granted qualified immunity with respect to the unlawful arrest and illegal detention claims. But the court denied qualified immunity as to Bagley’s excessive force claim.