Case law

Giacalone v. Abrams

850 F.2d 79 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jun 21, 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. … of qualified *81 immunity.

Natale v. Town of Ridgefield

927 F.2d 101 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Mar 5, 1991

A government official performing a discretionary function is entitled to qualified immunity provided his or her “conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … The threshold issue in determining the applicability of Katz’ qualified immunity defense is whether the Natales had a “clearly established right” to the permits at issue.

Ruben Loya, Jr. v. Texas Department of Corrections

878 F.2d 860 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Aug 2, 1989

Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 731, 743 , 102 S.Ct. 2690, 2697 , 73 L.Ed.2d 349 (1982) (interlocutory appeal from the denial of qualified immunity). … On the merits we hold that TDC’s entitlement to immunity under the eleventh amendment is clearly established in this circuit. Ruiz v.

Clarence I. Taylor, Jr. v. David K. Waters, Individually

81 F.3d 429 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Apr 10, 1996

A government official is entitled to qualified immunity from civil damages for performing discretionary functions when his “conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … — unless the other issue is (1) inextricably intertwined with the decision of the lower court to deny qualified immunity or (2) consideration of the additional issue is necessary to ensure meaningful review of the qualified

Tribble v. Gardner

860 F.2d 321 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Oct 25, 1988

The defendants in that case moved for summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity. … established rights. 9 Therefore, we hold that, viewing the facts in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, the district court was correct in denying defendants' motion for summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity

Griess v. State of Colorado

841 F.2d 1042 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Mar 15, 1988

The Supreme Court has indicated that when the issue with which we are concerned, i.e., whether constitutional rights allegedly violated were "clearly established" for purposes of qualified immunity under Harlow v. … Because the test for qualified immunity turns on whether a right is clearly established, courts should ordinarily determine the existence and character of the underlying constitutional violation(s) before proceeding to the

Richard Harrold v. Lewis Hagen

Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Apr 28, 2026

Officer Hagen invoked qualified immunity. The district court held that Officer Hagen was entitled to qualified immunity—because the relevant right was not clearly established— and dismissed the suit. … We determine whether an officer receives qualified immunity by asking two questions: (1) whether the officer violated a constitutional right, and (2) whether that right was clearly established.

Lynch v. Barrett

703 F.3d 1153 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jan 4, 2013

“The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established . . . constitutional rights of which a reasonable officer … rights were not clearly established.”)

Borges-Colon v. Roman-Abreu

438 F.3d 1 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Feb 6, 2006

They also argue that both Mayor Román and Norat are entitled to qualified immunity. … Public officials are "entitled to qualified immunity unless the facts establish that their conduct violated a constitutional right that was 'clearly established' at the time of the violation such that a reasonable officer

Pourmoghani-Esfahani v. Gee

625 F.3d 1313 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Nov 9, 2010

Even if a constitutional violation based on deliberate indifference was shown, Defendant is entitled to qualified immunity. … But we do not rule out today that Defendant might yet be due qualified immunity as the facts become developed.6 The district court’s order denying summary judgment and qualified immunity to Defendant on the claim for deliberate

Carabajal v. City of Cheyenne, WY

847 F.3d 1203 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Feb 6, 2017

Regardless, a hint as to what the law may be cannot substitute for clearly established law. See Mullenix, 136 S.Ct. at 309 . As Plaintiffs unequivocally acknowledge, the law simply is not clearly established. C. … Of course, this court's decision was vacated insofar as the "clearly established law” part of the qualified immunity analysis (as to one of the officers involved).

Perez v. Unified Government of Wyandotte County/Kansas City

432 F.3d 1163 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Dec 27, 2005

When a defendant raises a qualified immunity defense, the plaintiff bears the burden of establishing that the defendant’s conduct violated a constitutional or statutory right and that the right was clearly established … If de novo review of the alleged facts demonstrates that they do not amount to a violation of a clearly established right, we reverse a denial of summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds. Id.

Joseph Ruffino, Randall A. Noble, and Emmett Doherty v. Michael Sheahan, Individually and in His Official Capacity as Sheriff of Cook County, Illinois

218 F.3d 697 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jun 27, 2000

Because the rationale that supports qualified immunity from suit in individual capacity cases is absent in official capacity cases, it is well established that the qualified immunity doctrine does not apply to official capacity … The law of qualified immunity requires a plaintiff to show (1) that she has asserted a violation of a constitutional right, and (2) that the right in question was clearly established at the time of the challenged action.

Dible v. Scholl

506 F.3d 1106 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Nov 8, 2007

Therefore we review only the district court’s decision to deny qualified immunity. … Moreover, this court has a broad view of what makes “clearly established law” for the purpose of qualified immunity. Bearden, 475 F.3d at 929 ; Hayes v. Long, 72 F.3d 70, 73 (8th Cir.1995).

Erika Mabes v. Shannon Thompson

Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Apr 28, 2025

Both sets of defendants invoked qual- ified immunity, contending that their actions did not violate the Mabeses’ clearly established rights. … Thompson’s en- titlement to qualified immunity naturally follows from the Mabeses’ failure to carry their “burden of demonstrating the violation of a clearly established right.” Forman v.

Frederick Allen v. Roy Cooper

895 F.3d 337 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Jul 10, 2018

In doing so, the district court explained that these defendants were not protected by qualified immunity because “the law of [copyright] infringement is clearly established.” … 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.’” Mullenix v.

Johnson v. Clifton

74 F.3d 1087 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jan 26, 1996

clearly established law. … of clearly established law.

Cindy Louise Cross v. City of Des Moines, John Woolsey Dennis Rich, Cindy Louise Cross v. City of Des Moines, John Woolsey Dennis Rich

965 F.2d 629 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · May 28, 1992

Woolsey, Rich, and the City appeal the district court’s denial of their summary judgment motion, claiming entitlement to qualified immunity. We reverse. I. … Cross, in fact, seems to have a fundamental misunderstanding of how a qualified immunity claim is analyzed.

JOHN W. WALKER, — v. CITY OF PINE BLUFF, —

414 F.3d 989 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jul 21, 2005

Grace is entitled to qualified immunity unless he violated a clearly established right of which a reasonable person would have kndwn. Harlow v. … probable cause ... that is, whether the officer should have known that the arrest violated plaintiffs clearly established right.”

Elkins v. District of Columbia

District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 27, 2009

seizure was clearly established). … Thus, they do not assert qualified immunity. Instead, some of the Individual Defendants contend that they were not personally involved in the seizure. -17- Messrs.