Case law

John Doe v. Joan Delie

257 F.3d 309 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jul 24, 2001

Debates over defendants' qualified immunity typically turn on this "clearly established right" clause. … Davis, in short, concerned not the authorities a court may consider in determining qualified immunity, but this entirely discrete question: Is qualified immunity defeated where an appellee violates any clearly established

Armijo Ex Rel. Armijo Sanchez v. Peterson

601 F.3d 1065 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Apr 13, 2010

Qualified immunity “protects governmental 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 … The qualified immunity inquiry has two elements: whether a constitutional violation occurred, and whether the violated right was “clearly established” at the time of the violation. Pearson, 129 S.Ct. at 815-16 .

Terebesi v. Torreso

764 F.3d 217 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Aug 21, 2014

But the doctrine of qualified immunity shields both state and federal officials from suit “unless [1] the official violated a statutory or constitutional right that [2] was clearly established at the time of the challenged … “An officer is not entitled to qualified immunity on the grounds that the law is not clearly established every time a novel method is used to inflict injury.” 20 Mendoza v.

Beneficial Consumer Discount Company v. David R. Poltonowicz John Poltonowicz the Internal Revenue Service of the United States of America

47 F.3d 91 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Feb 9, 1995

of the well-established injunction against recognizing a waiver of federal sovereign immunity not evidenced in the statutory text. … Accordingly, a showing of a violation of federal law will not alone suffice to qualify a claim under the FTCA's waiver. Nuclear Transp. & Storage, Inc. v.

Willingham v. Loughnan

261 F.3d 1178 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 15, 2001

The Officer Defendants argue, most substantively, that they are entitled to qualified immunity because their acts violated no clearly established law at the pertinent time. … established preexisting law for qualified immunity purposes.

Salvador Reza v. Russell Pearce

806 F.3d 497 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Aug 18, 2015

To overcome Senator Pearce’s qualified immunity defense, Reza must establish both that Senator Pearce violated his First Amendment rights, and that this violation was of a “clearly established statutory or constitutional … In evaluating the question of qualified immunity, we must be careful not to define “clearly established” at a “high level of generality.” City & Cnty. of San Francisco v.

Ehsan Ouza v. City of Dearborn Heights, Mich.

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 5, 2020

Regarding the clearly established prong, we have repeatedly recognized—and Defendants do not contest—that “freedom from excessively forceful or unduly tight handcuffing is a clearly established right for purposes of qualified … Clearly Established Right As discussed above, a right is clearly established for purposes of overcoming the qualified immunity defense when existing precedent has “placed the statutory or constitutional question beyond

Lisa Bergman v. Jeremy Howard

54 F.4th 950 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Dec 12, 2022

To qualify as “clearly established,” a principle must originate from an actual Supreme Court holding, not from its passing dicta. See White v. Woodall, 572 U.S. 415, 419 (2014). … Did the Michigan court’s refusal to provide this different type of state-funded expert qualify as an “unreasonable application” of Ake’s clearly established holding? We think not.

Henry Caraballo-Sandoval and Cree Carmen Caraballo v. R.E. Honsted

35 F.3d 521 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Oct 14, 1994

Qualified immunity and stay of discovery Caraballo-Sandoval and Cooper contend that clearly established law extended the First Amendment right to freedom of association to visitation privileges. … Qualified immunity protects government official performing discretionary functions from civil liability if their conduct violates no clearly established statutory or constitutional rights. Courson v.

Maldonado v. Rodriguez

932 F.3d 388 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Aug 6, 2019

As to the clearly-established prong of the qualified immunity analysis, the district court held that "the law was clearly established that the First Amendment protected their political support for [Rodriguez's opponent] unless … The district court explained Gunaca simply as a holding in favor of qualified immunity, in which the court did not reach the question of clearly established law.

John Everett Miller v. Herman Solem, Warden, South Dakota State Penitentiary, and Gay Krull

728 F.2d 1020 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Mar 22, 1984

generally are shielded 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 known.” … A prisoner has a “clearly established” Eighth Amendment right to be reasonably protected from known dangers of attacks by fellow inmates. Cline v. Herman, 601 F.2d 374, 375 (8th Cir.1979); Gullatte v.

Dahl v. Weber

580 F.3d 730 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Sep 4, 2009

Ruling on defendants’ motion for summary judgment, the district court denied absolute immunity, granted Bloomberg and Dooley qualified immunity, and denied Weber qualified immunity for the period beginning with the admission … Discussion Qualified immunity protects public officials from damage liability if “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”

Tammy D. Scarbrough v. Bryant Myles, Jr.

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Mar 29, 2001

Because Hall violated no clearly established 8 Our inquiry in qualified-immunity analysis is whether the government actor's conduct violated clearly established law and not whether an arrestee's conduct … In addressing discretionary-function immunity and qualified immunity, our court has stated that "[u]nder both Alabama law and federal law, the core issue is whether a defendant violated clearly established law."

Cynthia Kernats v. Thomas O'Sullivan

35 F.3d 1171 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Sep 16, 1994

We may not' deny O’Sullivan the shield of qualified immunity unless Kernats can establish that as of December 1,1991, O’Sullivan’s alleged conduct violated clearly established rights under the Fourth Amendment. … Because the case law had not clearly established the unlawfulness of O’Sullivan’s alleged actions as of the time he acted, O’Sullivan was entitled to qualified immunity.

Haynes v. Marshall

887 F.2d 700 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Oct 12, 1989

"[T]he right the official is alleged to have violated must have been 'clearly established' " in a particularized sense, Anderson v. … They suggest, however, that there was no clearly established standard by which to measure whether they used excessive force, until 1986 when the Supreme Court announced its opinion in Whitley v.

James Carey v. Nevada Gaming Control Board Gregory Spendlove State of Nevada

279 F.3d 873 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Feb 4, 2002

If we had only the Supreme Court's precedents to guide us, we might also conclude that the right was not clearly established. … We think this is sufficient to clearly establish the right in our circuit.

Cerrone v. Brown

246 F.3d 194 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Apr 10, 2001

Fields, 230 F.3d 502, 511 (2d Cir. 2000). 15 The district court held that the defendants were not entitled to qualified immunity on summary judgment because (1) the law was "clearly established" at the time of the seizure … I. 17 A police officer is entitled to qualified immunity from liability for his discretionary actions if either (1) his "conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable

Tuttle v. City Of Oklahoma City

728 F.2d 456 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Feb 28, 1984

Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 , 102 S.Ct. 2727, 2738-9 , 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982) (government officials "are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or … immunity"); Pierson v.

Ronald Kincade v. City Of Blue Springs, Missouri

64 F.3d 389 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Oct 12, 1995

"Public officials are entitled to qualified immunity when their 'conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.' " Buzek v. … public employees can never be "clearly established."

Patricia Thorsted Stephanie Thorsted v. Tim Kelly

858 F.2d 571 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Oct 3, 1988

Government officials performing discretionary functions are entitled to qualified immunity unless their conduct violates “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known … First, they contend that qualified immunity was unavailable to Kelly because it was clearly established that the fourth amendment prohibited arrests without probable cause and the use of unreasonable force by police.