Case law

Levine v. City of Alameda

525 F.3d 903 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · May 13, 2008

Qualified Immunity The district court properly found that Flint was not personally liable for violating Levine’s due process rights based on qualified immunity. … Under the defense of qualified immunity, a government official is immune from civil damages unless his conduct violates a clearly established right of which a reasonable person would have known. Long v.

Mitchell v. Rice

954 F.2d 187 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Jan 10, 1992

In reviewing appellants’ qualified immunity defense, we look to substantive Eighth Amendment law as established at the time of the alleged violations. … Because the record in this case does not adequately address all the issues necessary to determine whether prison officials violated clearly established law, we cannot grant qualified immunity at this time.

Romero v. Storey

672 F.3d 880 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Feb 23, 2012

Qualified immunity shields government officials “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have … In other words, “[a]n order denying summary judgment based on qualified immunity necessarily involves a legal 3 determination that certain alleged actions violate clearly established

Jeffrey C. Rahn v. Vickie Hawkins

73 F. App'x 898 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Aug 26, 2003

The district court found the officers were entitled to qualified immunity on the excessive-force claim and granted summary judgment to defendants on the remaining claims.1 We reverse the grant of qualified immunity, and we … We also hold that the constitutional right at issue was clearly established. See Hope v.

Joni Zaya v. Kul Sood

836 F.3d 800 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Sep 6, 2016

“The doctrine of quali- fied immunity protects government officials ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … Bussey, then his conduct violates clearly established law under the Eighth Amendment. See Petties, slip op. at 18.

Bush v. Strain

513 F.3d 492 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jan 14, 2008

A government official performing discretionary functions is entitled to qualified immunity unless his conduct violates clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.21 … We also hold that the defendants have not established that they are entitled to qualified immunity.

Pedro Rivera v. Don Bell

509 F. App'x 628 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Feb 19, 2013

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Rivera’s excessive force claim under the doctrine of qualified immunity because Rivera failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendant used … Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 231-32 (2009) (defendants were entitled to qualified immunity where there is no violation of plaintiff’s constitutional right or the right at issue was not “clearly established”).

Capone v. Marinelli

868 F.2d 102 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Feb 23, 1989

Because we find that the Appellants reasonably relied upon a bulletin establishing the existence of a warrant for arrest, they are entitled to qualified immunity as a matter of law. … violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”

Diana G. Schlegel and Central Pacific Freight Lines, an Oregon Corporation v. William Bebout and Bob Russell

841 F.2d 937 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Mar 8, 1988

The Court pointed out that the right to due process of law is quite clearly established by the Due Process Clause, and thus it could follow that any action that violates that clause violates a clearly established right regardless … Based upon these principles, appellants are entitled to immunity if they can prove that a reasonable PUC official could have believed that the action taken was lawful, in light of clearly established law.

Brian Cornfield, a Minor, by His Mother and Next Friend, Janet Lewis v. Consolidated High School District No. 230, Richard Spencer, and James Frye

991 F.2d 1316 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Apr 23, 1993

“Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, public officials performing discretionary functions are protected against suits from damages unless their conduct violates clearly established statutory or constitutional rights … Because Cornfield has not succeeded in placing the actions taken by Spencer and Frye outside a “clearly established” constitutional norm, they are entitled to qualified immunity. II.

Jacquelyn Wallace v. Nancy Cummings

843 F.3d 763 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Dec 9, 2016

The defendants moved for summary judgment, and Cummings argued that she was entitled to qualified immunity because she had shot Wallace unintentionally. … A government official is entitled to qualified immunity unless (1) the official violated a plaintiff's constitutional right and (2) that right was clearly established at the time of the violation. Pearson v.

Robert R. Rowe v. Fort Lauderdale

279 F.3d 1271 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jan 23, 2002

Qualified immunity shields government officials who perform discretionary governmental functions from civil liability so long as their conduct does not violate any “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights … But, by assuming the role of an investigator, he took on a qualified immunity that protected all of his actions in performing that role that did not violate clearly established rights of which a reasonable person in his

Fye v. Oklahoma Corp. Commission

175 F. App'x 207 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Apr 6, 2006

When a defendant raises the defense of qualified immunity, a plaintiff must establish that the defendant’s conduct violated a federal constitutional or statutory right and that the right was clearly established at the time … Bode’s complete inaction in the face of actual knowledge, if proven, violated a constitutional right that was, at the time, clearly established, and she is not entitled to qualified immunity.

Cleveland-Perdue v. Brutsche

881 F.2d 427 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Aug 4, 1989

Under the Harlow standard, qualified immunity should be granted when the official’s conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. … In denying defendant’s qualified immunity motion, the district court concluded that Thomas v. Pate had clearly established the right at issue. This reliance was misplaced. As noted above, Thomas v.

Hamid Yazdianpour v. Safeblood Technologies, Inc.

779 F.3d 530 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Feb 27, 2015

Ct. 884, 891-92 (2011) (“Ordinarily, orders denying summary judgment do not qualify as ‘final decisions’ subject to appeal [under 28 U.S.C. § 1291].”); 28 U.S.C. § 2107(a) (requiring appeal be filed within thirty days after … As Wanlass dealt with constructive knowledge for purposes of a laches defense, it is inapposite to the issue whether Licensees can establish justifiable reliance for purposes of a fraud claim under Arkansas law.

Perry v. Spencer

94 F.4th 136 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Feb 21, 2024

The District Court granted summary judgment to the defendants based on qualified immunity after determining that, at the relevant time, clearly established law did not treat such prolonged solitary … immunity because the law was not clearly established at the time.

Laborde-Garcia v. Puerto

Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · May 18, 1993

The district court entered __________ an injunction ordering the Company to reinstate her, and it denied the individual defendants' claims of "qualified immunity." … Creighton, 483 U.S. 635 , 638-41 ___ ________ _________ (1987) (state actors have qualified immunity unless -8- 8 precedent would have alerted reasonable person that action would infringe "clearly established" constitutional

Lance McNeal v. Gary Kott

590 F. App'x 566 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Nov 4, 2014

To pierce the qualified immunity shield, McNeal must show (1) that Kott and LaLonde violated his constitutional rights and (2) that the right was “clearly established” at the time. See Leary, 528 F.3d at 441 . … Because McNeal cannot identify a violation of any “clearly established” right, Kott and LaLonde deserve qualified immunity.

Spurlock v. Satterfield

167 F.3d 995 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Feb 11, 1999

Thus, Satterfield is not entitled to qualified immunity for these alleged acts, because they violated the plaintiffs’ clearly established constitutional rights. Y. … In rejecting Coarsey’s qualified immunity claim, the district court determined that ”[s]oIici-tation of false testimony for use in prosecuting an individual violates clearly established constitutional rights.”

Kennedy v. City of Villa Hills, Ky.

635 F.3d 210 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Mar 24, 2011

In the context of qualified immunity, preexisting, clearly established law refers to “binding precedent from the Supreme Court, the Sixth Circuit, the district court itself, or other circuits that is directly on point.” … To defeat Schutzman’s qualified- immunity defense, Kennedy must also demonstrate that his right to be free from retaliatory arrest in such a context was clearly established.