Case law

John Melnik v. James Dzurenda

14 F.4th 981 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Sep 27, 2021

Dissenting, Judge Bennett would hold that defendants were entitled to qualified immunity because they did not violate clearly established law. … Clearly Established Right Defendants in this case focus their challenge to the district court’s denial of qualified immunity on the second prong of the analysis, the “clearly established” element, and on only part of

Hicks v. LeBlanc

81 F.4th 497 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Sep 5, 2023

Appellants insist they are entitled to qualified immunity because they neither violated Hicks’ constitutional rights nor acted unreasonably in light of clearly established law. We disagree. … Having established that Hicks’ right to timely release was clearly established, we turn to the first question of qualified immunity: whether _____________________ 21 U.S.

Costanich v. DEPT. OF SOCIAL AND HEALTH SERVICES

627 F.3d 1101 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Dec 3, 2010

clearly established. 1. … immunity, this right had not previ- ously been clearly established in the civil context.13 [12] A right is “clearly established” when “the contours of the right were already delineated with sufficient clarity to make

Eleanor Keller v. Attala County

952 F.3d 216 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Feb 20, 2020

Without setting forth a clearly established right for which the analysis can continue, Plaintiffs have not defeated Deputy Fleming’s qualified immunity defense. … his actions violated clearly established law.

Brown v. Montoya

662 F.3d 1152 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Nov 8, 2011

Clearly Established For Mr. Brown to overcome Officer Montoya’s qualified immunity, the procedural due process right must be “clearly established at the time of defendant’s alleged misconduct.” … Because the issue is whether Officer Montoya has qualified immunity, it is sufficient to determine whether the alleged conduct violates a clearly established substantive due process right.15 No clearly established Supreme

Jose Peroza-Benitez v. Darren Smith

994 F.3d 157 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Apr 8, 2021

Haser and Officer White were entitled to qualified immunity because Peroza-Benitez’s constitutional rights at issue were not “clearly established” at the time of the incident. … At summary judgment, the burden is on the officer to establish an entitlement to qualified immunity. Halsey, 750 F.3d at 288.

Morris v. Noe

672 F.3d 1185 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Feb 27, 2012

The second step in our qualified immunity inquiry is whether Morris’s right to be free from an unlawful arrest was clearly established. … Yet even if Noe violated a constitutional right, he is still entitled to qualified immunity if the right was not clearly established at the time.

Auriemma v. Rice

910 F.2d 1449 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Aug 20, 1990

established and thereby creating a qualified immunity defense. … But in any event it cannot be said that the law was clearly established in 1983. Rice is entitled to qualified immunity on count IV, thus requiring reversal on that count. V.

Eason v. Thaler

14 F.3d 8 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Feb 10, 1994

Cope v. Cogdill

3 F.4th 198 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jul 2, 2021

There are two aspects to qualified immunity: whether the plaintiff has alleged a violation of a constitutional right and whether the right at issue was “clearly established” at the time of the alleged violation. … Even if their actions were constitutionally unlawful, they are entitled to qualified immunity if the constitutional right at issue was not “clearly established.” Pearson, 555 U.S. at 232. 1.

Cecilia Perry v. Jermanda Adams

993 F.3d 584 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Apr 5, 2021

Because Adams’s conduct did not violate the detainee’s clearly established rights, she is entitled to qualified immunity. Accordingly, we reverse. … Because Adams is a public official asserting a defense of qualified immunity, she is immune from suit under § 1983 unless her actions violated constitutional or statutory rights that were clearly established at the time of

Roger Trent v. Steven Wade

776 F.3d 368 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jan 29, 2015

The doctrine of qualified immunity “insulate[s]” state officials from liability to the extent that the officials’ actions do not violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights.” … As discussed, the qualified immunity analysis involves two inquiries: (1) whether the official violated a statutory or constitutional right and (2) whether that the right was clearly established. Morgan v.

Rufus West v. Gregory Grams

607 F. App'x 561 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Apr 22, 2015

immunity. … It has never been clearly established that inmates have a right to inmate-led group worship under the First Amendment.

Estate of Jaime Ceballos v. Husk

919 F.3d 1204 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Mar 26, 2019

to qualified immunity. *1213 Medina v. … Here, the district court denied Officer Husk qualified immunity, ruling that Ceballos had stated a clearly established Fourth Amendment violation and that there were genuinely disputed issues of material fact that precluded

James P. Crocker v. Deputy Sheriff Steven Eric Beatty

886 F.3d 1132 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Apr 2, 2018

Rights may be clearly established for qualified immunity purposes by one of three methods: (1) “case law with indistinguishable facts clearly establishing the constitutional right,” (2) “a broad statement of principle within … We further determine that these rights were clearly established at the time of the seizure such that Beatty is not entitled to qualified immunity.

Pagan-Gonzalez v. Moreno

919 F.3d 582 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Mar 22, 2019

"[O]fficers are entitled to qualified immunity under § 1983 unless (1) they violated a federal statutory or constitutional right, and (2) the unlawfulness of their conduct was 'clearly established at the time.' " Dist. of … Qualified Immunity Having concluded that the search as alleged violated the Constitution, we turn to the second prong of the qualified immunity inquiry: whether the unlawfulness of the agents' conduct was clearly established

Henderson v. Glanz

813 F.3d 938 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Dec 28, 2015

The defendants do not challenge the “clearly established” prong of the qualified immunity standard, other than in a single sentence stating that “Plaintiff failed to show that the Sheriff violated a clearly … Henderson has not carried her burden of establishing he violated a constitutional right that was clearly established, we conclude the district court erred in holding he is not entitled to qualified immunity.

Randall Kevin Jones v. Officer S. Fransen

857 F.3d 843 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · May 19, 2017

Nor does binding precedent allow for the conclusion that Defendant Officers’ employment of Draco in the circumstances of this case violated Jones’s clearly established rights, so the officers have qualified immunity. … In summary, we conclude that Defendant Officers Fransen, Towler, and Ross are entitled to qualified immunity because binding precedent does not clearly establish that their actions in allowing Draco to apprehend Jones violated

David Andrews v. Robert Scuilli

853 F.3d 690 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Apr 10, 2017

If no constitutional right would have been violated were the allegations established, there is no necessity for further inquiries concerning qualified immunity. … This leaves us with the question of whether the rights at issue were clearly established at the time.18 We need not dwell on this.

United States v. Lopez

147 F.3d 1 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Jun 16, 1998

Missouri, 439 U.S. 357 (1979), the Court established the requirements for attacking the composition of a jury: In order to establish a prima facie violation of the fair-cross-section requirement, the defendant must show … It clearly did not deprive him of a fair trial. Defense counsel was able to cope effectively with the shortened period of preparation.