Case law

Fischbach & Moore, Inc. v. United States

470 U.S. 1029 · Supreme Court of the United States · Mar 4, 1985

Harris v. American Medical Intern., Inc.

982 F.2d 528 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Dec 8, 1992

Plaintiff asserts that much of the evidence necessary to establish her claims was in defendants' possession, and emphasizes that discovery was not yet completed when the district court granted summary judgment. 3 Neither … Nevertheless, the latter allegation must first expressly and clearly be made before any claim under § 1981 is even stated.

Arnold B. WILLIAMS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. EDWARD APFFELS COFFEE COMPANY, Bill Berry and J.C. Hill, Defendants-Appellees

792 F.2d 1482 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jul 1, 1986

Williams is clearly within a protected group and has suffered an adverse employ *1488 ment decision. … Williams has also clearly suffered a loss of earnings as a result of not being hired for the permanent position.

Donovan v. Bel-Loc Diner, Inc.

780 F.2d 1113 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Dec 18, 1985

The evidence as a whole clearly suffices to establish the existence of a pattern or practice, at least as a “just and reasonable inference.” … While, again, there was some evidence tending to show that some employees may not have been victims of the general pattern that was established prima facie, it clearly did not constitute the sort of evidence of precise work

Dawn Case v. Kitsap County Sheriff's Department

249 F.3d 921 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · May 9, 2001

In determining whether the deputies are entitled to qualified immunity, we must ask two questions: (1) Was the law governing the officer's conduct clearly established? … Where, as here, the law is clearly established and officers cannot claim to have been reasonable in failing to comply, qualified immunity cannot be granted.

J.P. v. County of Alameda

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Mar 2, 2020

that the official has violated was clearly established at the time of the violation.” … See Shafer, 868 F.3d at 1117 (holding that qualified immunity applies if no clearly established law exists on the issue); see also White v. Pauly, 137 S.

Deaullandy Coleman v. Sergeant Jones

Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Jun 17, 2022

Nevertheless, the court went on to grant summary judgment to the defendant prison officials on qualified immunity grounds, holding that they had violated no “clearly established” right. … See, e.g., Wall, 741 F.3d at 502 (explaining that right to religious dietary accommodations in prison is “clearly established” for qualified immunity purposes); Lovelace v.

Rondigo, L.L.C. v. Township of Richmond

641 F.3d 673 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 1, 2011

P. 12(b)(6), so we review an assertion of qualified immunity to determine only whether the complaint ‘adequately alleges the commission of acts that violated clearly established law.’” (quoting Mitchell v. … When the qualified immunity defense is raised at the pleading stage, the court must determine only whether the complaint “adequately alleges the commission of acts that violated clearly established law.”

Ronald Mendoza v. Sherman Block, Los Angeles County

27 F.3d 1357 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · May 31, 1994

“[W]hen qualified immunity is at stake, [however], a court must first determine whether the law has been clearly established.” Romero, 931 F.2d at 628 . … Objective Reasonableness If the law governing an official’s conduct is clearly established, qualified immunity is available if a reasonable official could have believed the conduct at issue was lawful under that clearly established

Peggy Kelley v. Mark Myler, Gene Patrick, Ralph Bell and Hurricane Foods, Inc.

149 F.3d 641 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jul 13, 1998

The court also found that because the arrest was reasonable, the officers did not violate any clearly established constitutional rights, and thus were entitled to qualified immunity for their actions. … Whether a defendant is entitled to a qualified immunity defense depends on the objective legal reasonableness of the defendant’s actions assessed in light of clearly established law.

Joseph Siefert v. Hamilton Cty. Bd. of Comm'rs

951 F.3d 753 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Mar 3, 2020

And, at the very least, Defendants argue, the Sieferts’ due process rights were not clearly established, so qualified immunity blocks this lawsuit. … Even so, could this all be “clearly established” to get around qualified immunity? This standard extends broadly to “all but the plainly incompetent or those who knowingly violate the law.” District of Columbia v.

John Betts v. Martha Anne Shearman

751 F.3d 78 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · May 2, 2014

Even  in  the  absence  of  probable  cause,  a  police  officer  is  entitled  to  qualified  immunity  where  “(1)  [her]  conduct  does  not  violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which  … For  the  following reasons, we agree with the district court that the arresting  officers  had  arguable  probable  cause  and  were  entitled  to  qualified  immunity.   10 13

Blaylock v. City of Philadelphia

504 F.3d 405 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Oct 1, 2007

a violation of a clearly established constitutional right.”) … According ly, the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity here “if a reasonable officer could have believed that probable cause existed” to arrest Andre Blaylock “in light of clearly established law and the information

Robbie Autery v. Kevin Davis

355 F. App'x 253 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Nov 12, 2009

Public officials are entitled to qualified immunity so long as their discretionary actions do not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights. Lewis v. … Even in the absence of Terry, Sheriff Davis would still be entitled to qualified immunity. In Foy v.

Jensen v. City of Oxnard

145 F.3d 1078 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · May 28, 1998

Qualified Immunity All of the individual defendants claim that they are entitled to qualified immunity. … Government officials are given qualified immunity from civil liability under § 1983 “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have

Darnell Dukes v. v. Lizaola

486 F. App'x 642 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Oct 16, 2012

The district court properly granted summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity on Dukes’s pepper spray decontamination claim because it would not have been clear to reasonable prison officials in defendants’ position … Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 231 (2009) (an official is entitled to qualified immunity if the “conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known” (citation

Frank M. Dimeglio v. J. Robert Haines, Individually and in His Former Official Capacity as Zoning Commissioner of Baltimore County, Maryland, and Arnold M. Jablon, Individually and in His Official Capacity as Director of Zoning Administration and Development Management of Baltimore County, Maryland Roger Hayden, Individually and in His Official Capacity as Executive of Baltimore County, Maryland Baltimore County, Maryland, a Municipal Corporation

45 F.3d 790 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Feb 2, 1995

The term "clearly established" has an acquired meaning referencing qualified immunity, with its focus on law at the time of the challenged conduct. … interest may make it more difficult to find the law 'clearly established' when assessing claims of qualified immunity."); Borucki v.

Art Tobias v. Michael Arteaga

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Apr 27, 2021

We reverse the denial of qualified immunity on Tobias’s Fourteenth Amendment substantive due process claim because it was not clearly established that the abusive  TOBIAS V. … Defendants fail to establish their entitlement to qualified immunity is ‘beyond controversy.’”

United States v. Fred Romano

583 F.2d 1 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Aug 11, 1978

... is very general in nature and may implicate only low-level government employees” and that “because of the close relationship established by your Subcommittee with our investigators, proof that the immunized testimony … While the Government clearly would not be entitled to rely entirely on one or two conclusory affidavits to carry its burden, see United States v.

United States v. Sanchez Barreto

93 F.3d 17 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Aug 21, 1996

Under the well-established framework for evaluating plea-withdrawal motions, the district court considers all the circumstances, with particular attentionto four prominentfactors: (1) the plausibility … Consequently, without more, their general allegations of coercion, based on the imminence of trial or conflict-free defense counsel's enthusiasm for the negotiated plea bargain, are insufficient to establish