Zorn v. Linton · ¶31

The second prong of the qualified immunity analysis asks whether the “unlawfulness of [the official's] conduct was `clearly established at the time,' ” Wesby, 583 U. S., at 63, which requires assessing whether the “contours of the right [are] sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that right,” Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U. S. 635, 640 (1987). “[E]arlier cases involving `fundamentally similar' facts can provide especially strong support for a conclusion that the law is clearly established,” Hope v. Pelzer, 536 U. S. 730, 741 (2002), but there need not be a “ ` “case directly on point,” ' ” White v. Pauly, 580 U. S. 73, 79 (2017) (per curiam).

preliminary print (page proof)
Source edition
Passage preview. Read in context for the complete text, notes and references.