Case law

Krueger v. Lyng

4 F.3d 653 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Sep 13, 1993

The defendants then moved for summary judgment, arguing that they were protected by qualified immunity. … “Qualified 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 person would have

Mary E. Walters v. Paul Freeman

572 F. App'x 723 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jul 16, 2014

Towards that end, qualified immunity protects government officials engaged in discretionary functions and sued in their individual capacities unless they “violate[] clearly established federal statutory or constitutional … Because the facts, viewed in the light most favorable to Walters, demonstrate that Freeman violated her clearly established constitutional rights, the district court properly denied qualified immunity to Freeman.

Trellus Richmond v. Mario J. Badia

47 F.4th 1172 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 22, 2022

Richmond further argues that Badia’s actions violated his clearly established rights, such that Badia’s qualified immunity defense fails. … “A right may be clearly established for qualified immunity purposes in one of three ways: (1) [Eleventh Circuit or Supreme Court] case law with indistinguishable facts clearly establishing the constitu- tional right; (2)

Jennifer L.M. LeMay v. Michael B. Mays

18 F.4th 283 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Nov 15, 2021

Clearly Established We then turn to the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis⸺whether the right was clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct. See Dillard, 961 F.3d at 1052. … and entitling him to qualified immunity.

Sause v. Bauer

859 F.3d 1270 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jun 20, 2017

First, she argues that the defendants aren’t entitled to qualified immunity because they violated her clearly established rights under the First Amendment. … Second, she argues that even assuming the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity because the contours of that right aren’t clearly established, the doctrine of qualified immunity doesn’t shield them from her claims

Julie Ballou v. James McElvain

29 F.4th 413 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Sep 28, 2021

As Ballou’s disparate treatment claim alleged that McElvain violated her clearly established rights under the Equal Protection Clause, McElvain was not entitled to qualified immunity on that claim. … As Ballou’s disparate treatment claim alleged that McElvain violated her clearly established rights under the Equal Protection Clause, McElvain is not entitled to qualified immunity on that claim.

McBeth v. Himes

598 F.3d 708 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Mar 8, 2010

violated clearly established law.” … Himes contends, however, that even if he possessed a retaliatory motive when he spoke to DHS, he is nevertheless entitled to qualified immunity because he did not violate any clearly established constitutional right of

A. D. v. State of Calif. Highway Patrol

712 F.3d 446 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Apr 3, 2013

The Court then rejected the notion that the law, defined at such a level of generality, was “clearly established” for qualified immunity purposes. … Markgraf is not entitled to qualified immunity, because Plaintiffs have shown that he violated the foregoing clearly established law.

Daniels, Michael v. Knight, Stanley

Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Feb 5, 2007

The Strickland framework was clearly established by the time the Indiana trial court denied Daniels’ first post-conviction appeal on February 21, 1985. … See Williams, 529 U.S. at 391 (“It is past question No. 05-2620 13 that the rule set forth in Strickland qualifies as ‘clearly established Federal law, as determined by the

Wright v. City Of Philadelphia

409 F.3d 595 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jun 6, 2005

facts showed a violation of `clearly established' law." … violated was clearly established.

United States v. Bennett

868 F.3d 1 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Jul 5, 2017

On that basis, we held that the defendant's conviction could not qualify as a conviction for a crime that had as an element the "use . . . of physical force" because the "government ha[d] not established the offense of harmful … If anything, then, the force clause in § 16 would seem to be less clearly encompassing of reckless conduct than the residual clause in § 16.

Richard Wesley v. Alison Campbell

864 F.3d 433 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 20, 2017

“Qualified immunity protects public officials from liability for civil damages if their conduct does not violate ‘clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’” … To determine whether Rigney is entitled to qualified immunity, we must determine whether the facts within the trial record make out a violation of a constitutional right, and whether that right was clearly established “such

Crystal Starnes v. Butler County Court of Common

971 F.3d 416 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Aug 24, 2020

s] of Appeals could clearly establish a right for purposes of qualified immunity.” … The District Court defined the violative conduct too broadly for qualified immunity purposes. al-Kidd, 563 U.S. at 742 (warning courts not to define clearly established law at “a high level of generality”).

Mark A. Campbell v. Kevin Kallas

936 F.3d 536 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Aug 19, 2019

As relevant here, the judge rejected the claim of qualified immunity, concluding that caselaw clearly established a constitutional right to effective medical treatment. We reverse. … Because no case clearly establishes that denying treatment beyond hormone therapy is unconstitu- tional, qualified immunity applies regardless.

Morelli v. Webster

552 F.3d 12 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Jan 7, 2009

Qualified Immunity. This case differs from a garden-variety summary judgment case because it involves the doctrine of qualified immunity. … Given this well-settled jurisprudence, there is no legitimate doubt that the right asserted here was clearly established.

Arlane James v. New Jersey State Police

957 F.3d 165 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Apr 21, 2020

Qualified immunity protects government officials from being held liable for damages when their conduct does not violate a citizen’s clearly established rights. … Trooper Bartelt is entitled to qualified immunity because he did not violate Gibbons’s clearly established rights.

Bronche Johnson v. California Department of Corrections

384 F. App'x 625 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jun 17, 2010

The district court properly entered summary judgment on Johnson’s claims under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (“RLUIPA”) based on qualified immunity because the pertinent law was not clearly established … Callahan, 129 S.Ct. 808, 822 (2009) (holding that state officers were entitled to qualified immunity because their actions did not violate clearly established law); see also Warsoldier v.

Eric Earnest, Jr. v. Genesee Cnty., Mich.

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jan 28, 2021

constitutional right; and (2) the right was clearly established.” … clearly established).

Andrew B. Bloom v. Melissa Peacock

498 F. App'x 867 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Nov 19, 2012

Further, a defense of qualified immunity may be addressed in a motion to dismiss, which will be granted if the “complaint fails to allege the violation of a clearly established constitutional right.” St. George v. … To determine if an officer is entitled to qualified immunity, courts must determine (i) whether the plaintiff’s allegations establish a constitutional violation, and (ii) whether the constitutional violation was clearly

Carol Vincent v. City of Sulphur

805 F.3d 543 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Oct 28, 2015

To defeat qualified immunity, the plaintiff must show that the official’s conduct was objectively unreasonable in light of a clearly established rule of law. See id. at 323. … In summary, as we have explained, the alleged constitutional right was not clearly established, so the officers are entitled to qualified immunity.