Case law

Julian Nettles-Bey v. Philip Williams

819 F.3d 959 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Apr 14, 2016

The  district  judge  thought  that  this  suit  presents  a  triable   issue   not   because   of   any   doubt   about   the   law—the   judge   deemed   it   clearly   established   that   an   officer   may   not   arrest … That’s   the   qualified-­‐‑immunity   issue:   Whether   it   is   clearly   estab-­‐‑ lished   that   federal   law   (statutory   or   constitutional)   forbade   the   public   employees   to   act   as   they   did.  

Turner v. Dammon

848 F.2d 440 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · May 3, 1988

Of course, if the plaintiff fails to allege “a violation of clearly established law, a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal before the commencement of discovery.” … The Supreme Cotut has clearly endorsed this view in the context of qualified immunity: [T]he right to due process of law is quite clearly established by the Due Process Clause, and thus there is a sense in which any action

Jeffery Stanton v. Cory Elliott

25 F.4th 227 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Feb 1, 2022

On this record, there is a genuine dispute of fact that might show a violation of a clearly established constitutional right. We thus reverse the district court’s grant of qualified immunity. I. … So granting summary judgment on qualified immunity was improper.

Moss v. Martin

614 F.3d 707 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Aug 2, 2010

Defendants’ motion relied on qualified immunity, and so that is what the district court focused on. … It recognized that there are two elements of a qualified immunity claim—first, that the defendants violated Moss’s constitutional rights, and second, that those rights were clearly established at the time the defendants acted—and

Defore v. Premore

86 F.3d 48 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jun 13, 1996

Discussion Qualified immunity insulates public officials from claims for damages where their conduct does not violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … Moreover, qualified immunity is available as a matter of law when the undisputed facts establish that it was objectively reasonable for the defendants to believe that their actions did not violate clearly established rights

Walsh v. Franco

849 F.2d 66 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jun 6, 1988

Finally, we ruled that the defendant in Weber was not entitled to qualified immunity from liability for the unlawful search because the unconstitutionality of a policy of indiscriminate strip searches was clearly established … "). 18 Thus, the third Robison method is fact-specific and would preserve the qualified immunity defense for these appellants only if, in light of the clearly established rule that indiscriminate strip-searching of misdemeanor

Bisbee v. Bey

39 F.3d 1096 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Nov 3, 1994

In evaluating defendants’ qualified immunity claims, we must first determine whether plaintiffs allegations, if true, state a claim for a violation of a constitutional right that was clearly established when defendant acted … Defendants concede that, if plaintiffs allegations are true, he has shown a violation of a clearly established constitutional right. See Mt. Health City Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ. v.

Randall S. Bills v. John J. Dahm, Warden Harold W. Clarke, Director

32 F.3d 333 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Aug 8, 1994

A prison official is entitled to qualified immunity from suit unless the official’s conduct violates a clearly-established statutory or constitutional right. Anderson v. … The defendant prison officials, therefore, did not violate a clearly established right, and thus are entitled to qualified immunity in this action. II.

Doe Ex Rel. Doe v. Braddy

673 F.3d 1313 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Mar 16, 2012

Discussion Qualified Immunity “If the law at that time did not clearly establish that the officer’s conduct would violate the Constitution, the officer should not be subject to … Sheriff’s Office, 329 F.3d 1300, 1305 (11th Cir. 2003).4 For qualified immunity purposes in this case, the federal law applicable to the specific circumstances of this case was not close to established clearly at

Taravella v. Town of Wolcott

599 F.3d 129 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Mar 16, 2010

And because this principle has been clearly established since Loudermill , the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis would appear to be satisfied. … Ill “[E]ven where the law is ‘clearly established’ and the scope of an official’s permissible conduct is ‘clearly defined,’ the qualified immunity defense also protects an official if it was ‘objectively reasonable’ for him

William Dominque v. James A. Telb, Sheriff, Jimmy G. Putnam, Assistant Deputy Director

831 F.2d 673 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Oct 23, 1987

plaintiffs clearly established rights. … constitute a violation of clearly established law.

Howard Harrell and Sarah Harrell v. Donald Cook, Jack Woods, John Keenan, and a Police Officer Unknown To

169 F.3d 428 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Feb 17, 1999

immunity, because the Harrells faded to allege a violation of a clearly established federal right. … The court further found that this constitutional right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation, and hence the defendants were not protected by qualified immunity.

Jerry Smith, Jr. v. Melvin Finkley

10 F.4th 725 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Aug 18, 2021

vi- olated was not clearly established. … rules that were clearly established at the time it was taken.”

Hidahl v. Gilpin County Department of Social Services

938 F.2d 1150 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jul 16, 1991

Having found qualified immunity, the district court noted that it need not address the issue of absolute immunity. … No. 6, 784 F.2d 340, 342-43 (10th Cir.1986), we stated that in a § 1983 action, where the defense of qualified immunity is raised, it becomes the plaintiff’s burden to convince the court that the law was “clearly established

David J. Scott v. Patrick Churchill, Inspector, Carson City Regional Facility, Philip Bair

377 F.3d 565 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 23, 2004

An official defendant in a § 1983 suit is entitled to qualified immunity if her conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … established, and Bair is not entitled to qualified immunity.

Landstrom v. Illinois Department of Children & Family Services

892 F.2d 670 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jan 9, 1990

Contrary to plaintiffs’ contentions, Darryl H. does not supply the particularized, clearly established right required for individual defendants to lose their qualified immunity. … immunity because the conduct alleged does not violate any clearly established first amendment rights.

Ronnie Rice v. James Burks and Mark Harvey

999 F.2d 1172 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jul 26, 1993

Police officers who use force in making an arrest are entitled to qualified immunity from suits for damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … “It is the plaintiff who bears the burden of establishing the existence of the allegedly clearly established constitutional right.” Rakovich v.

Shearl Danenberger v. J. Thomas Johnson, Mark Frech and Bill Fleischli

821 F.2d 361 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · May 4, 1987

Supreme Court stated that “whether an official may prevail in his qualified immunity defense depends upon the ‘objective reasonableness of his conduct as measured by reference to clearly established law.’ ” Id. at 3018 (quoting … prior to Hermes , and, thus, the defendants in this case would still be entitled to qualified immunity since any such right enunciated in Hermes was not previously clearly recognized.

Warren v. Keane

196 F.3d 330 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Nov 16, 1999

The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials from suits for money damages where “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would … Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity if (1) their actions did not violate clearly established law, or (2) it was objectively reasonable for them to believe that their actions did not violate such law.

Hartje v. Federal Trade Commission

106 F.3d 1406 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Feb 13, 1997

Economou, 438 U.S. 478, 507 , 98 S.Ct. 2894, 2911 , 57 L.Ed.2d 895 (1978) (officials are entitled to qualified immunity unless actions knowingly violate a clearly established constitutional right). … Therefore, we agree with the district court that plaintiffs simply offered no evidence which would deny Rushkoff qualified immunity.