Case law

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.

In re: Allen v.

Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Aug 8, 1997

clearly established federal rights . … qualified immunity is lost if an official violates clearly established state law.

Dennis Goddard and Bonnie Goddard v. Pete Urrea, Gene Ford

847 F.2d 765 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jun 20, 1988

In this case, the first inquiry is whether the Goddards have adequately alleged a violation of a clearly established right thereby warranting denial of summary judgment on immunity grounds. … The factual allegations in this case clearly establish a factual dispute which impacts on the reasonableness of the agents’ conduct.

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

Green v. Newport

868 F.3d 629 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Aug 22, 2017

Qualified Immunity Framework “The doctrine of qualified immunity shields officials from civil liability so long as their conduct ‘does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … Green has failed to meet the burden of establishing that the frisk violated clearly established law, and we find that Officer Newport is entitled to qualified immunity regarding the frisk. II.

Blake Stewardson v. Cameron Biggs

43 F.4th 732 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Aug 5, 2022

The court explained that “it is clearly established that officers have a duty to intervene when a realistic opportunity would prevent use of excessive force on handcuffed individuals, individuals who are not or have stopped … It is clearly established that “[a]n officer who is present and fails to intervene to prevent other law enforce- ment officers from infringing the constitutional rights of citi- zens is liable under § 1983 if that officer

Jonathan Rogers v. M. L. Pendleton, Officer M. G. Vinyard, Officer

249 F.3d 279 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · May 4, 2001

While a consensus- of cases of persuasive authority may clearly establish a right for qualified *288 immunity purposes, the inverse is also true: if there are no cases of controlling authority in the jurisdiction in question … , and if other appellate federal courts have split on the question of whether an asserted right exists, the right cannot be clearly established for qualified immunity purposes.

Mullenix v. Luna

25 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 555 · Supreme Court of the United States · Nov 9, 2015

The doctrine of qualified immunity shields officials from civil liability so long as their conduct " 'does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.' … In Brosseau , which also involved the shooting of a suspect fleeing by car, the Ninth Circuit denied qualified immunity on the ground that the officer had violated the clearly established rule, set forth in Tennessee v.

Pratt v. State of NH

Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · May 6, 1994

established law." … Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982) (qualified ______ __________ immunity extends to conduct which "does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known").

Individuals for Responsible Government, Inc. v. Washoe County

522 U.S. 966 · Supreme Court of the United States · Nov 10, 1997

Cowboys for Life v. Sampson

983 F. Supp. 2d 1362 · District Court, W.D. Oklahoma · Oct 21, 2013

The doctrine of qualified immunity is well established. … immunity because the plaintiffs “right to be free from a retaliatory investigation [was] not clearly established.”

Tina Ray v. Michael Roane

93 F.4th 651 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Feb 22, 2024

We turned then to the question of qualified immunity. … As we explained in Ray, a government official who violates the Constitution might nonetheless be shielded from liability under the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis if “clearly established

Francisco Jose Rivero Pacific Internment Services, a California Corporation v. City and County of San Francisco, and Joseph Surdyka Boyd Stephens

316 F.3d 857 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Dec 20, 2002

Valuable Governmental Benefit Government officials are entitled to qualified immunity only “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would … That is, they argue that it was not “clearly established” that the outcome of the Pickering balancing test favored Rivero.

Cybernet, LLC v. Jonathan David

954 F.3d 162 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Mar 24, 2020

This standard works in harmony with the law of qualified immunity, which shields government officials “from civil liability so long as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights … Specifically, to defeat a qualified immunity defense, a plaintiff must show that “(1) the defendant violated the plaintiff’s constitutional rights, and (2) the right in question was clearly established at the time of the

Buffington v. Baltimore County

913 F.2d 113 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Jul 31, 1990

qualified immunity because their conduct did not violate clearly established constitutional law of which a reasonable officer would have known. … The Buffingtons understandably did not think that the individual defendants had raised the distinct contention that they were entitled to qualified immunity because their conduct did not violate clearly established constitutional

Jenness v. Nickerson

637 A.2d 1152 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Feb 15, 1994

The Officers here violated no clearly-established rights. … The Officers violated no “clearly established” rights.

Gena Duckworth etc. v. Bart Saracino etc.

Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jul 19, 2007

right allegedly infringed was clearly established”). … The next step in the qualified immunity analysis “is to ask whether the right was clearly established . . . in light of the specific context of the case.” See Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194, 201 (2001).

Sweetin v. City of Texas City

48 F.4th 387 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Sep 2, 2022

The court held that even if there was a genuine dispute of material fact about whether Wylie unconstitutionally seized Sweetin and Stefek, the law was not clearly established enough to survive qualified immunity. … (2) the right was “clearly established at the time.”

Decoria v. County of Jefferson

333 F. App'x 171 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · May 20, 2009

Titland is not entitled to qualified immunity if (1) his conduct violated a constitutional right, and (2) that right was “clearly established” at the time of the constitutional violation. Saucier v. … We conclude that the alleged constitutional right at issue here was not “clearly established” in 2005, and that Titland is therefore entitled to qualified immunity.

Decoria v. County of Jefferson

333 F. App'x 171 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · May 20, 2009

Titland is not entitled to qualified immunity if (1) his conduct violated a constitutional right, and (2) that right was “clearly established” at the time of the constitutional violation. Saucier v. … We conclude that the alleged constitutional right at issue here was not “clearly established” in 2005, and that Titland is therefore entitled to qualified immunity.