Case law

Al-Jundi v. Estate Of

885 F.2d 1060 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Sep 15, 1989

from suit under the doctrine of qualified immunity. … may enjoy qualified immunity if it was objectively reasonable for him to believe that his acts did not violate those rights." 28 Al-Jundi contends that, at the time of the Attica riot, the law was well-established that the

Molinelli v. Tucker

901 F.2d 13 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Apr 9, 1990

The court also rejected the qualified immunity defense, noting, based on testing procedures deemed analogous to urinalysis, that the law was clearly established in October 1986 that the defendants’ conduct was subject to … The right the government official is alleged to have violated is “clearly established,” and hence beyond any qualified immunity, when the “contours” of the right are sufficiently unambiguous so that a reasonable official

Wendell Smith v. Pike County, Kentucky

338 F. App'x 481 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 10, 2009

The district court held that in the absence of a clearly established constitutional right to the specific medical treatment in question, the defendants were entitled to qualified immunity. … Peed, 195 F.3d 692, 695 (4th Cir. 1999), the district court correctly held that the defendants were entitled to qualified immunity. See Saucier v.

Kitrich Powell v. James Gibbons

453 F. App'x 712 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Oct 11, 2011

Dismissal was proper on Powell’s claim concerning the opening of his legal mail outside of his presence because defendants were entitled to qualified immunity. See Pearson v. … Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (2009) (concluding that state officers were entitled to qualified immunity because their actions did not violate clearly established law); Sherman v.

Kerrin Barrett v. PAE Government Services, Inc.

975 F.3d 416 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Sep 15, 2020

of their conduct was clearly established at the time.” … Because the undisputed evidence establishes that the Arlington County defendants had probable cause to detain Plaintiff, qualified immunity bars her § 1983 claim under the first prong of the qualified immunity test, and

Blaine Sallier v. Deborah Brooks and Christine Ramsey

343 F.3d 868 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Sep 18, 2003

In 1993 in Lavado , when faced with a qualified immunity issue, we held that it was clearly established as of 1987 that a prisoner’s mail could not be opened and read in an arbitrary and capricious fashion. 992 F.2d at 610 … This analysis brings us to the third step of the qualified immunity: whether Sallier has offered sufficient evidence to indicate that the defendants’ actions were objectively unreasonable in light of the clearly established

Fox v. Coughlin

893 F.2d 475 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jan 4, 1990

The district court denied Fox’s motion and granted the appellees’ cross motion for summary judgment on the grounds that they were protected by qualified immunity because Fox did not have a “clearly established” right to assistance … These reasons satisfy the flexible standard set forth in Wolff , and bars Fox’s § 1983 claim against DiLoreto under qualified immunity.

Wiley v. Doory

14 F.3d 993 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Jan 27, 1994

The only issue before this Court is whether Doory is entitled to qualified immunity. 6 I Qualified immunity shields a governmental official from liability for civil monetary damages if the officer’s “conduct does not violate … Thus, appellant Doory is entitled to qualified immunity. Accordingly, the order of the district court regarding the availability of qualified immunity to Doory as to the Fifth Amendment claims is REVERSED. .

Holland v. Valhi Inc.

22 F.3d 968 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Apr 19, 1994

Amalgamated failed to establish that its computation, in fact, was consistent with the requirement of the regulations. … Pensions § 13 (1987); see also ERISA § 3(35), 29 U.S.C. § 1002 (35), and if "qualified” under 26 U.S.C. § 401 et seq., is subject to favorable Internal Revenue Service treatment. .

Wallingford v. Olson

592 F.3d 888 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jan 25, 2010

Deputy Olson appeals the dis *890 trict court’s denial of qualified immunity. We reverse. I. … a constitutional right’ and (2) whether the asserted constitutional right is clearly established.

Anita Arrington-Bey v. City of Bedford Heights

858 F.3d 988 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Feb 24, 2017

Qualified immunity. … Because no case clearly established the unlawfulness of the decisions made during Omar’s arrest and detention, the officers involved are entitled to qualified immunity.

Zeigler v. Jackson

716 F.2d 847 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Oct 3, 1983

Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 , 102 S.Ct. 2727, 2736-39 , 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982), the Supreme Court held that public officials whose positions entail the exercise of discretion enjoy qualified immunity from personal liability in … In order to show that a defendant exercising broad discretionary power lacked good faith, plaintiff must prove that the defendant’s actions violated clearly established constitutional law. Harlow v.

Lojuk v. Johnson

770 F.2d 619 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Aug 8, 1985

and qualified immunity. … Plaintiff argued in the alternative that even if defendants had not violated clearly established constitutional rights, they should be denied qualified immunity because they had violated a state administrative regulation.

Joanne Joyce, Individually and as of the Estate of James D. Joyce v. Town of Tewksbury, Massachusetts, John R. MacKey Alfred Donovan and Robert Budryk

112 F.3d 19 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Apr 29, 1997

Because qualified immunity turns primarily on an appraisal of existing case law, oral argument has been deemed unnecessary. … But the en banc court is agreed that qualified immunity applies, and there is less consensus about the underlying constitutional issue.

2

Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Sep 30, 2016

Qualified immunity is unavailable where,  22 as here, the action violates an accused’s clearly established constitutional  23 rights, and no reasonably competent police officer could believe otherwise.   … In Ricciuti, the panel held that fabrication of evidence  13 violated a “clearly established constitutional right[]” and thus the officers were  14 not entitled to qualified immunity. 

Kompare v. Stein

801 F.2d 883 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Sep 4, 1986

violate clearly established rights. … Any doubt as to whether the prosecution was without probable cause must be *892 resolved in favor of the defendant because she has qualified immunity unless she violated a clearly established right.

Onie Pena v. Dallas County Hospital Dist

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Nov 23, 2015

Ct. 1765, 1776 (2015) (“Qualified immunity is no immunity at all if ‘clearly established’ law can simply be defined as the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures.”). … Qualified immunity thus attaches unless the law is clearly established that the defendant’s conduct amounted to a seizure.

Joseph Wheeler, Cross v. City of Pleasant Grove, a Municipal Corp., Cross

664 F.2d 99 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Dec 18, 1981

We see no reason to disturb this finding under the clearly erroneous rule. … The district court held that the defendants in this action were shielded by the defense of a qualified immunity as set forth in Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232 , 94 S.Ct. 1683 , 40 L.Ed.2d 90 (1974).

Walter v. Pike County, Pa.

544 F.3d 182 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Sep 18, 2008

violated clearly established law.” … at issue — in the case of qualified immunity, whether that set of facts is “sufficient to establish a violation of a clearly established constitutional right.”

Salahuddin v. Goord

467 F.3d 263 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Oct 27, 2006

The doctrine of qualified immunity shields public 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 … Summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity is not appropriate because it was clearly established law at the time of the alleged violations that religious exercise may not be denied without any reason.