Case law

Stanton v. Sims

571 U.S. 3 · Supreme Court of the United States · Nov 4, 2013

immunity because no clearly established law put him on notice that his conduct was unconstitutional. … qualified immunity precisely because the law regarding warrantless entry in hot pursuit of a fleeing misdemean- ant is not clearly established.

Phillip D. Carlson and Thomas R. Smith v. Mary E. Gorecki

374 F.3d 461 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jul 23, 2004

Finally, based on this record, Górecki is not entitled to qualified immunity. … The cloak of qualified immunity is removed from a government official if the plaintiffs show that the law prohibiting the government official’s conduct was “clearly established.” Gregorich v.

Hawkins v. Steingut

829 F.2d 317 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Sep 18, 1987

We hold that defendants did not violate any of Hawkins' clearly-established federal rights by failing to reappoint him, and therefore the individual defendants are entitled to qualified immunity as a matter of law. … The court found that the individual Board members were not entitled to qualified immunity from suit, apparently on the theory that Hawkins had a clearly-established first amendment right not to be terminated from his job

Savard v. Rhode Island

338 F.3d 23 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Aug 4, 2003

The defendants in this case were granted qualified immunity because, according to the district court, the law did not "clearly establish" that reasonable suspicion was needed to strip search people arrested for non-violent … We believe the right of such a person to be free of such a search was 'clearly established' on October 21, 1986."); Weber, 804 F.2d at 803 (denying qualified immunity for defendants who performed suspicionless strip searches

United States v. Michael Wright

697 F.3d 306 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Oct 1, 2012

Because the district court awarded Amy nothing, it therefore clearly and indisputably erred. … proximate cause) with McGarity, 669 F.3d at 1267-70 (concluding that proximate cause was not established), Aumais, 656 F.3d at 154-55 (same), and Kennedy, 643 F.3d at 1263-65 (same). .

Hartline v. Gallo

546 F.3d 95 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Oct 8, 2008

She further contends that because the strip search violated clearly established law, the individual officers are not entitled to qualified immunity, and that because the search was conducted pursuant to municipal policy, … preclude the defense of qualified immunity ..., we cannot say on the somewhat unique facts before us that it is clearly established that no ‘reasonable suspicion’ justified a strip-search in this case.”

Estate of Usaamah Abdullah Rahim v. Doe 2

Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Oct 20, 2022

We hold that the officers are entitled to qualified immunity under each aspect of the "clearly established" prong of the defense. … The Supreme Court has repeatedly found that officers acting under such circumstances do not violate clearly established law. Two of the Court's recent grants of qualified immunity are illustrative.

Armando Villanueva v. State of California

986 F.3d 1158 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jan 28, 2021

CLEVELAND of federal law that was clearly established at the time,” Pauluk v. Savage, 836 F.3d 1117, 1121 (9th Cir. 2016). “We review the district court’s conclusions regarding qualified immunity de novo.” … However, because it believed there was such division, it simply reasoned that the law was not clearly established and ruled for the officers on the basis of qualified immunity. Id. at 1213.

Brook Bernini v. City of St. Paul

665 F.3d 997 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jan 13, 2012

Qualified immunity shields a public official from suit for civil damages when his “conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … The officers are therefore entitled to qualified immunity unless (1) the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs, establishes a violation of a constitutional or statutory right, and (2) the right was

Wordy Jack Thompson, Jr. v. Judge Charles O. Betts

754 F.2d 1243 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Mar 11, 1985

Civ.P. 54(b). 1 It is well established that, “[i]n the absence of a certification by the district court that meets these two requirements, a partial disposition of a multi-claim or multi-party action does not qualify as a … Moore, 744 F.2d 1179, 1183-86 (5th Cir.1984) (holding that denial of claim of qualified immunity is not immediately appealable since it is designed to provide a lesser measure of protection).

Mark A. Merritt v. M.D. Reed Charles Lanehart, Arkansas Department of Correction

120 F.3d 124 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jul 15, 1997

Qualified immunity *126 shields government officials from suit unless their conduct violates a clearly established constitutional or statutory right of which a reasonable person would have known. Harlow v. … In considering whether defendants are entitled to qualified immunity, we must consider whether the plaintiff has asserted a violation of a constitutional or statutory right that was clearly established at the time of the

Salvador Negrete v. G. Lewis

585 F. App'x 364 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Oct 7, 2014

The district court properly granted summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity because during his two-year placement in the prison’s modified program, it would not have been clear to a reasonable prison official … Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 232 (2009) (defendants are entitled to qualified immunity where there is no violation of plaintiff’s constitutional right or the right at issue was not “clearly established”); see also Noble v.

Alan Baynes v. Brandon Cleland

799 F.3d 600 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 24, 2015

Clearly Established Although the district court agreed that Baynes established the first prong of the qualified immunity analysis, it ultimately found that Baynes’ claim could not survive summary judgment because … This right was ‘clearly established’ for qualified immunity purposes at the time of Amanda’s seizure on October 30, 2002.”)

C.F. Ex Rel Farnan v. Capistrano Unified School District

654 F.3d 975 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Aug 19, 2011

The district court granted these motions and ultimately held that, although the Peloza comment violated the Establishment Clause, the law was not clearly established, so Corbett was protected by qualified immunity. … [8] The Supreme Court has recently reiterated that we must not “define clearly established law at a high level of generali- ty” when analyzing whether the qualified immunity standard is met. Al-Kidd, 131 S.

James Myers v. City of Centerville, Ohio

41 F.4th 746 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 21, 2022

Crawford, 15 F.4th at 763 (“[M]ost statements of this proposition are careful to explain that its application rests on qualified immunity’s clearly established prong.”); id. at 765. … right was clearly established.

Daniel Chavez v. David Robinson

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Apr 15, 2016

clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … Chavez’s pro se complaint did not clearly show that he would be unable to overcome qualified immunity.

James E. McCurdy v. Montgomery County, Ohio

240 F.3d 512 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Feb 16, 2001

Qualified immunity *520 shields government officials performing discretionary functions from liability for civil damages when their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … We apply a two-step analysis to determine whether a public official is entitled to qualified immunity: first, we determine whether a clearly established constitutional or statutory right has been violated; and second, we

Virgie Lee Otey v. Melvin Marshall

121 F.3d 1150 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jul 30, 1997

A qualified immunity defense "shields government agents from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … the federal right allegedly infringed was clearly established . . . .

Paterek v. Village of Armada, Michigan

801 F.3d 630 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Sep 8, 2015

Qualified Immunity Delecke asserts immunity as a public official even if Plaintiffs’ rights were violated. … Delecke’s claim for qualified immunity.

Weyant v. Okst

101 F.3d 845 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Dec 3, 1996

clearly established constitutional rights, or (2) it was objectively reasonable for them to believe their acts did not violate those rights. … Qualified immunity does not protect those who are " 'plainly incompetent or those who knowingly violate the law.' " Hunter v. Bryant, 502 U.S. at 229 , 112 S.Ct. at 537 (quoting Malley v.