Case law

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

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

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.

JACKMON

District Court, D. New Jersey · Nov 4, 2025

Defendants contend they are entitled to qualified immunity because no law clearly established that designating NOGE a STG violated Plaintiff’s constitutional rights. (See id.) … There is a two-step inquiry into whether qualified immunity applies: (1) whether the official’s conduct violated a constitutional or federal right; and (2) whether the right at issue 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.”)

Megenity v. Stenger

27 F.3d 1120 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 23, 1994

When an official is cloaked with absolute immunity, it is not necessary to determine whether the plaintiff has a clearly established legal right because, even if he does, no relief is forthcoming. *1124 In the qualified immunity … analysis, however, we first look to see if the plaintiff has a clearly established statutory or constitutional right.

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).

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).

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.

Marie Woolfolk, Administratrix of the Estate of Eric Rahmal Woolfolk Leroy and Marie Woolfolk v. Darren Smith City of Pine Bluff, Arkansas

81 F.3d 741 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Mar 12, 1996

The Supreme Court narrowed our jurisdiction to hear interlocutory qualified immunity appeals when it limited such appeals to a district court’s “determination about pre-existing ‘clearly established’ law.” Johnson v. … We conclude that the Woolfolks’ failure-to-train claim against the City is not “inextricably intertwined” with Smith’s claim of qualified immunity.

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.

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.

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.”

Mangieri v. Clifton

29 F.3d 1012 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Aug 24, 1994

A police officer is entitled to claim the cloak of qualified immunity "unless it is shown that, at the time of the incident, he violated a clearly established constitutional right." Spann v. … The right to be free from arrest without probable cause is a clearly established constitutional right. See Beck v.

Asten v. City of Boulder

652 F. Supp. 2d 1188 · District Court, D. Colorado · Aug 26, 2009

Qualified Immunity Officers Compton and Frenzen assert a qualified immunity defense to Ms. Asten’s claims against them individually. … Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, “government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory

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.

Susan Fisler Silberstein v. City of Dayton

440 F.3d 306 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Mar 3, 2006

Qualified immunity protects government officials performing discretionary functions unless their conduct violates a clearly established statutory or constitutional right of which a reasonable person in the official’s position … Whether Silberstein’s First Amendment rights were clearly established Having found that no First Amendment violation occurred, we need not address the “clearly established” prong of the qualified immunity analysis.

Henry S. Kijonka v. Michael Seitzinger

363 F.3d 645 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Apr 14, 2004

We cannot find a reported Illinois case that found the elements of assault satisfied in any case remotely like this one, and this dooms Rietz’s defense of qualified immunity. … Kirksey, 885 F.2d 476, 478 (8th Cir.1989), but it goes far to establish qualified immunity.

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.