Case law

Tortu v. Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department

556 F.3d 1075 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Mar 3, 2009

’ qualified immunity claims. … The determination of qualified immunity at step two is strictly a legal question of whether, even though the facts alleged by the plaintiff make out a constitutional violation, that constitutional right was not clearly established

Reynaldo Ramirez v. Jim Wells County, Texas

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · May 24, 2013

Because there was no false arrest, no constitutional violation occurred, and, accordingly, we have no occasion to reach the part of the qualified immunity analysis that asks whether the law was clearly established. … We have explained the ‘clearly established’ prong as follows: Qualified immunity should not be denied unless the law is clear in the more particularized sense that reasonable officials should be “on notice

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.

David A. Connelly v. Comptroller of the Currency

876 F.2d 1209 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jul 7, 1989

We must address in turn whether any of these claims rests upon such clearly established law that the defendants have forfeited their qualified immunity from suit. … established as to abrogate the defendants’ qualified immunity.

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.

Peter I. Diamondstone v. Christopher A. MacAluso Leroy Prior, David R. Stanton, A. James Walton, Jr., and State of Vermont

148 F.3d 113 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jun 22, 1998

Qualified Immunity i. … Even “[w]here a right is clearly established, ‘the defendants may nonetheless establish immunity by showing that reasonable persons in their position would not have understood that their conduct was within the scope of the

Guerrero, Ulices v. O'Neil

District Court, W.D. Wisconsin · May 8, 2023

O’Neil’s qualified immunity argument fails due to those factual disputes as well. See Taylor v. … City of Milford, 10 F.4th 800, 808 (7th Cir. 2021) (court should not grant summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds where “determining whether [defendant’s] violation of [plaintiff’s] rights was clearly established

Conrad Noyola v. Texas Department of Human Resources

846 F.2d 1021 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jun 15, 1988

Second, if the first amendment rights were not “clearly established” at the time Noyola was terminated, 1 Appellants may defend on the basis of qualified official immunity from suit. … Consequently, Appellants could not have violated any “clearly established constitutional rights,” and they are protected by qualified immunity from suit. III.

Rivera v. Senkowski

62 F.3d 80 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Aug 8, 1995

Finally, the district court rejected defendants' defense of qualified immunity as to the retaliation claim since (1) the constitutional right against retaliation had been clearly established by 1990 and (2) defendants' acts … Appellate Jurisdiction 12 The affirmative defense of qualified immunity "shields public officials from liability for their discretionary acts that do 'not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of

Viilo v. Eyre

547 F.3d 707 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Oct 27, 2008

Qualified immunity protects government officials from liability for civil damages if their actions did not violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … immunity, and (2) the issue appealed concerned not which facts the parties might be able to prove, but rather whether or not those facts showed a violation of clearly established law.

Forbes v. Township of Lower Merion

313 F.3d 144 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Dec 11, 2002

For instance, we may "review whether the set of facts identified by the district court is sufficient to establish a violation of a clearly established constitutional right," but we may not "consider whether the district court … a violation of a clearly established constitutional right," Ziccardi, 288 F.3d at 61 , but based on the District Court's spare comments in denying the defendants' summary-judgment motion, we are hard pressed to carry out

Ashcroft v. al-Kidd

563 U.S. 731 · Supreme Court of the United States · May 31, 2011

(a) Qualified immunity shields a government official from money damages unless (1) the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that right was “clearly established” at the time of the challenged conduct … Ashcroft did not violate clearly established law and thus is enti tled to qualified immunity.

Sudah v. District of Columbia

District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 25, 2025

And if he fails to show that his asserted right was clearly established after a defendant officer asserts qualified immunity, courts properly grant the officer’s motion to dismiss. E.g., Turpin v. Ray, 319 F. … Cir. 2016) (affirming dismissal of a complaint on qualified-im- munity grounds when the plaintiff had not shown that the right at issue was clearly established at the time of the purported violation).

Stanley v. Gallegos

852 F.3d 1210 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Mar 17, 2017

. § 1291 , the panel reverses and remands to the district court for farther consideration of whether Defendant violated clearly established federal law or is instead entitled to qualified immunity. I. … The Court reiterated that qualified immunity may be overcome “only by showing that [the federal rights in question] were clearly established at the time of the conduct at issue.” Id. at 197, 104 S.Ct. 3012 .

McEvoy v. Spencer

124 F.3d 92 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Aug 11, 1997

Qualified Immunity The defense of qualified immunity shields government agents “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a … A defendant pleading qualified immunity on a motion to dismiss is entitled to prevail if the allegations in the complaint fail to “state a claim of violation of clearly established law.” Behrens v.

John Witherow v. Lea Baker

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · May 18, 2021

not clearly established. … B In considering what constitutes “clearly established” law for purposes of qualified immunity, the Supreme Court has taken a narrow approach.

Lana Canen v. Dennis Chapman

847 F.3d 407 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jan 27, 2017

Detective Chapman’s failure to disclose that he was not trained as a latent print examiner cannot be characterized as a violation of any clearly established right, and, accordingly, the doctrine of qualified immunity protects … provide the defense with clearly exculpatory information, the officer could not claim qualified immunity.

Brautigam v. Fraley

684 F. Supp. 2d 589 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 4, 2010

and official immunity and remain immune from suit except as the General Assembly shall specifically waive the immunity. … The court specifically distinguished the immunity for an employee of the Commonwealth versus the immunity conferred by statute upon the employee of a municipality: We note that the immunity defense provided by the General

Bracken v. Okura

955 F. Supp. 2d 1138 · District Court, D. Hawaii · Jun 24, 2013

“Qualified immunity entitles [police officers] not to stand trial or face the other burdens of litigation’ on [a constitutional] claim, provided their conduct did not violate a clearly established federal right.” … to qualified immunity.

Anthony Novak v. City of Parma, Ohio

33 F.4th 296 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 29, 2022

Qualified immunity protects state officers against section 1983 claims unless (1) “they violated a federal statutory or constitutional right, and (2) the unlawfulness of their conduct was clearly established at the time” … So to prevail on his claim, Novak must show it was clearly established that the officers lacked probable cause to arrest him. Because he hasn’t done so, the officers are entitled to qualified immunity.