-
586 U.S. 38 Supreme Court January 7, 2019 No. 17-1660
The question in this qualified immunity case is whether two police officers violated clearly established law when they forcibly apprehended a man at the scene of a reported domestic violence incident.
The Ninth Circuit's entire relevant analysis of the qualified immunity question consisted of the following: "The right to be free of excessive force was clearly established at the time of the events in question.
Assuming without deciding that a court of appeals decision may constitute clearly established law for purposes of qualified immunity, see City and County of San Francisco v.
-
972 F.3d 1007 Eighth Circuit August 28, 2020 No. 19-1557
The jail employees argue they are entitled to summary judgment based on qualified immunity because the right at issue was not clearly established.
A grant of qualified immunity is inappropriate, absent an obvious violation, if the right was not clearly established.
The right in question, even if properly defined, was not clearly established. As such, a grant of qualified immunity was appropriate.
-
886 F.3d 1132 Eleventh Circuit April 2, 2018 No. 17-13526
The relevant question, then, is whether Beatty's seizure of Crocker's iPhone violated a "clearly established" right. If it did, Beatty is not entitled to qualified immunity.
Even in "novel factual situations," we must deny qualified immunity when clearly established case law sends the "same message" to reasonable officers.
We further determine that these rights were clearly established at the time of the seizure such that Beatty is not entitled to qualified immunity.
-
580 U.S. 73 Supreme Court January 9, 2017 No. 16-67
All three officers moved for summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds.
Qualified immunity attaches when an official's conduct " 'does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.' " Mullenix v.
The Court has found this necessary both because qualified immunity is important to " 'society as a whole,' " ibid., and because as " 'an immunity from suit,' " qualified immunity " 'is effectively lost if a case is erroneously permitted
-
932 F.3d 1184 Eighth Circuit August 8, 2019 No. 18-2730
at 523 (granting defendants qualified immunity on § 1983 First Amendment retaliation claim because it was not clearly established that plaintiff's termination violated his First Amendment rights).
Van Vooren and Kettwig are entitled to qualified immunity because it was not clearly established that Mogard's speech was constitutionally protected. III.
In a qualified immunity summary judgment appeal, this court may consider whether the facts viewed most favorably to the nonmovant constitute a violation of clearly established law. Id.
-
141 F.4th 76 Third Circuit June 18, 2025 No. 23-1373
established, as required for qualified immunity.
The Court noted that Defendants could re-raise qualified immunity once limited discovery uncovered the facts necessary to meaningfully assess whether they acted reasonably in light of clearly established law.
Stringer’s clearly established constitutional rights.” Opening Br. 25, 28 (emphasis added). But that conflates the two prongs of qualified immunity.
-
888 F.3d 259 Seventh Circuit April 19, 2018 No. 17-1898
That decision itself does not involve a pure legal issue regarding qualified immunity, i.e., whether the officers violated Jackson's clearly established constitutional rights.
violated clearly established rights.
The issue of whether these comments violated a constitutional right clearly established by particularized precedent seems like a pure legal question regarding qualified immunity, susceptible to our jurisdiction.
-
865 F.3d 544 Seventh Circuit July 26, 2017 Nos. 16-3560 & 16-3644
On the merits, the court ruled that both defendants were not shielded by qualified immunity because it was clearly established in the Seventh Circuit that inmates have the right to be free from deliberate indifference to a known risk
Step 2: Clearly Established Law We do have jurisdiction to review the second qualified immunity step: whether Clark’s asserted rights were clearly established at the time of his suicide.
Finally, Walker argues that the clearly established prohibition on deliberate indifference to prisoners’ and jail inmates’ risk of suicide is too general to be enforceable for purposes of qualified immunity.
-
913 F.3d 1227 Tenth Circuit January 24, 2019 Nos. 17-2072 & 17-2079
Here, our analysis focuses on the clearly-established-law prong, and we conclude that Plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate that Director Dean violated their clearly-established rights; consequently, Director Dean prevails on his qualified-immunity
We agree with Director Dean that he did not violate clearly-established federal law and thus conclude that he is entitled to the defense of qualified immunity.
to the issue of whether Director Dean is entitled to qualified immunity under the circumstances giving rise to this § 1983 suit, we conclude that his actions did not violate clearly-established federal law.
-
919 F.3d 165 Second Circuit March 20, 2019 Nos. 17-3564-cv; August Term 2018
It follows, and we have repeatedly held, that a state statute does not serve as "clearly established law" for purposes of qualified immunity.
The Lack of Clearly Established Law For qualified immunity to apply, it is sufficient that no clearly established law has held that "an officer acting under similar circumstances" violated an employee's due process rights.
And we conclude that, since Schwaller has not violated Tooly's clearly established rights, he is entitled to qualified immunity.
-
852 F.3d 1035 Eleventh Circuit January 26, 2017 No. 15-14373
Although we conclude that Deaton’s conduct violated the Fourth Amendment, qualified immunity protects him from suit because his violation was not clearly established in law when he acted.
Qualified immunity also protects Branham because his subordinate’s constitutional violation was not clearly established. A. Deaton is Entitled to Qualified Immunity.
Branham is entitled to qualified immunity because Deaton’s conduct was not a clearly established violation of the Fourth Amendment.
-
885 F.3d 811 Fifth Circuit March 20, 2018 No. 12-50217
But the extraterritorial application of these protections to Hernández was not clearly established at the time of Mesa's tortious conduct. Mesa is therefore entitled to qualified immunity. See Mullenix v.
. ----, 136 S.Ct. 305 , 308, 193 L.Ed.2d 255 (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."
Scherer , the Supreme Court held, "A plaintiff who seeks damages for violation of constitutional or statutory rights may overcome the defendant official's qualified immunity only by showing that those rights were clearly established
-
14 F.4th 1021 Ninth Circuit September 28, 2021 No. 20-35598
DePaul’s asserted interest was thus not clearly established. 1 Miller is entitled to qualified immunity, and we reverse the district court’s denial of summary judgment as to him.
MILLER DISCUSSION Miller is entitled to qualified immunity unless he violated a clearly established statutory or constitutional right.
CONCLUSION Miller is entitled to qualified immunity if his conduct did not violate DePaul’s clearly established statutory or constitutional rights.
-
864 F.3d 1071 Tenth Circuit July 25, 2017 No. 15-1454
Here the district court denied qualified immunity to the warden and director, reasoning that the underlying constitutional right had been clearly established.
Even with this assumption, the warden and director would enjoy qualified immunity because the underlying constitutional right had not been clearly established.
Perkins's ambiguity means that our circuit has not clearly established a right to outdoor exercise over an eleven-month period. As a result, the warden and director are entitled to qualified immunity. 5 IV.
-
949 F.3d 1282 Tenth Circuit February 10, 2020 No. 19-1079
qualified immunity.
Defendant instead focuses on the second prong of the qualified-immunity inquiry, arguing he is entitled to qualified immunity because the law was not clearly established at the relevant time.
Because Plaintiff’s asserted right to be free from sexual abuse was clearly established at the relevant time, Defendant is not entitled to qualified immunity. 1.
-
584 U.S. 100 Supreme Court April 2, 2018 No. 17-467
"Qualified immunity attaches when an official's conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known." White v.
And yet, the Court today insulates that conduct from liability under the doctrine of qualified immunity, holding that Kisela violated no "clearly established" law. See ante, at 1152 - 1154. I disagree.
The Ninth Circuit denied qualified immunity to the officer, concluding that his use of force was objectively unreasonable under clearly established law. Id ., at 1285-1286.
-
891 F.3d 214 Fifth Circuit May 23, 2018 No. 17-50022
The district court held those allegations cannot overcome the Doctors' and Nurses' qualified immunity because the right at issue was not clearly-established. We agree and affirm on that ground.
Because Bustillos' claims could not overcome the clearly-established prong of the qualified immunity defense, the district court did not err by declining to grant Bustillos' discovery requests.
Granting of qualified immunity on the "clearly-established" prong is not the same as holding that no constitutional violation occurred. That would conflate the two prongs of qualified immunity.
-
884 F.3d 939 Tenth Circuit March 5, 2018 No. 17-8025
Knopf has failed to show a violation of clearly established federal law on an essential element of his claim, this court reverses the district court's denial of qualified immunity to Mayor Williams. I. BACKGROUND A.
"Unlike most affirmative defenses, however, the plaintiff would bear the ultimate burden of persuasion at trial to overcome qualified immunity by showing a violation of clearly established federal law." Id.
Knopf with clearly established law to overcome Mayor Williams's qualified immunity defense.
-
868 F.3d 629 Seventh Circuit August 22, 2017 No. 16-1536
The court ruled that the investigatory stop violated a clearly established constitutional right, and denied qualified immunity. Officer Newport timely appealed. I. DISCUSSION A.
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 person
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.
-
595 U.S. 9 Supreme Court October 18, 2021 No. 20-1668
As to qualified immunity, the Court concluded that several cases, most notably Allen v. Muskogee, 119 F. 3d 837 (CA10 1997), clearly established that the officers’ conduct was unlawful. 981 F. 3d, at 826 .
On this record, the officers plainly did not violate any clearly established law.
The doctrine of qualified immunity shields officers 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.” Pearson v.
Showing the top 500 cases. Narrow your search or add filters to see more.