Case law

James F. Robinson v. Solano County Brian Cauwells, Solano County Sheriff's Deputy Officer Gary Faulkner, Solano County Sheriff's Deputy Officer

278 F.3d 1007 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Feb 4, 2002

established in this circuit in 1995 to override the officers’ claim of qualified immunity. … Conclusion We hold that Officers Cauwells and Faulkner were entitled to qualified immunity on the federal excessive force claim because the Fourth Amendment law gov *1017 erning their conduct was not clearly established at

Bridget Murphy v. A. Engelhart

933 F.3d 1027 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Aug 14, 2019

Qualified immunity shields an officer if his “conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. … Accordingly, Engelhart’s takedown did not violate a clearly established constitutional right.

Todd E. Prater v. John Dahm Harold W. Clarke Aaron Hall Bobby C. Kilgore

89 F.3d 538 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jul 17, 1996

They argue that their actions did not violate Prater’s clearly established constitutional right to protection from inmate attacks, and thus that they are entitled to qualified immunity. II. … As our cases further establish, however, the question of qualified immunity requires more than a determination that a particular right is “clearly established” in the abstract. See Anderson v.

Jacqueline Washington v. L. Newsom R. Phillips J. Thomas the City of Southfield and the Southfield Police Department

977 F.2d 991 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Dec 21, 1992

When a claim to qualified immunity is raised within the context of a motion for summary judgment, the non-movant must allege facts sufficient to indicate that the act in question violated clearly established law at the time … Thus, the plaintiff must effectively pass two hurdles when facing a defendant on summary judgment who claims qualified immunity. First, the allegations must “state a claim of violation of clearly established law.”

J W v. Birmingham Bd. of Educ.

904 F.3d 1248 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Sep 24, 2018

Qualified Immunity Analysis In actions brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 , the doctrine of qualified immunity offers complete protection for government officials whose conduct "does not violate clearly established statutory … Wilson , 311 F.3d 1340 , 1350 (11th Cir. 2002) (recognizing that "fair and clear notice" is the cornerstone of the qualified immunity analysis). There are various ways to evaluate whether a right is clearly established.

Marcus Mote v. Debra Walthall

902 F.3d 500 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Aug 31, 2018

immunity as a defense.” 3 The only pure legal question we may answer at the qualified immunity stage is “whether a given course of conduct would be objectively unreasonable in light of clearly established law.” 4 … to the clearly-established prong of the qualified immunity analysis, and we confine our analysis accordingly. 5 Kinney, 367 F.3d at 347 (quoting Wagner v.

Romero v. Kitsap County

931 F.2d 624 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · May 1, 1991

However, when qualified immunity is at stake, a court must first determine whether the law has been clearly established. Tribble, 860 F.2d at 324 . … By extension, the qualified immunity defense extends to conduct that does not violate clearly established statutory, constitutional, or treaty-based rights 6 The Fourth Circuit observes: Often trial can yet be avoided if

Eleanor Keller v. Attala County

930 F.3d 746 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jul 23, 2019

To overcome qualified immunity, the plaintiff must show that (1) there was a violation of a constitutional right; and (2) the right at issue was “clearly established” at the time of the defendant’s conduct. … Plaintiffs have not demonstrated a clearly established substantive due process right on the facts they allege.

Blake v. Wright

179 F.3d 1002 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 15, 1999

Alternatively, the majority opinion may imply that the district court in Mitchell could not reach the qualified immunity question because the law with respect to Title III was clearly established, not because qualified immunity … We fail to see the logic of providing a defense of qualified immunity to protect public officials from personal liability when they violate constitutional rights that are not clearly established and deny them qualified immunity

Patricia Mueller, Paul Mueller v. Douglas Tinkham and Michael Hanlen

162 F.3d 999 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Dec 16, 1998

his actions violated a clearly established right. … Qualified immunity protects “state actors from personal liability where their actions, though unlawful, are nevertheless objectively reasonable in light of the clearly established law.” Rogers, 133 F.3d at 1119.

Billy Tyler v. Tom Barton and Frank O. Gunter

901 F.2d 689 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Apr 26, 1990

An exception exists, however, where a court denies summary judgment on the issue of qualified immunity because qualified immunity provides “immunity from suit rather than a mere defense to liability.” … Thus, we conclude that Barton and Gunter did not violate any clearly established constitutional right. Accordingly, the doctrine of qualified immunity applies to Barton and Gunter. III.

Martin v. D.C. Metropolitan Police Department

812 F.2d 1425 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Feb 10, 1987

(footnotes omitted); Mitchell, 105 S.Ct. at 2816 (defendant entitled to dismissal on qualified immunity plea unless plaintiff states a claim of violation of clearly established law). … The “clearly established law” and “objective reasonableness” facets of current qualified immunity doctrine tug in opposite directions where, as here, the “clearly established law” itself contains a subjective component.

Walter v. Morton

33 F.3d 1240 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Aug 30, 1994

the claim of qualified immunity. … If he was discharged in retaliation to his report, this would constitute a violation of a clearly established constitutional right.

Terri Vinyard v. Steve Wilson

311 F.3d 1340 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Nov 14, 2002

be clearly unlawful, summary judgment based on qualified immunity is appropriate.” … the law applicable to particular circumstances clearly and to overcome qualified immunity even in the absence of case law.”)

Livingston Manners v. Officer Ronald Cannella

891 F.3d 959 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jun 4, 2018

As for the officers, they were entitled to qualified immunity because they violated no clearly established constitutional right. … Qualified immunity is appropriate if the officers’ conduct did “not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Hill v.

James v. Rowlands

606 F.3d 646 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · May 26, 2010

We conclude that, even if such rights existed, they were not clearly established. We therefore affirm the grant of qualified immunity on these two claims. … We conclude, however, that James’s right to this information was not clearly established and that the offi- cials are therefore entitled to qualified immunity on these claims.

Samuel L. Pfannstiel v. City of Marion, Doyle Elliot and James A. Pearce, Mike Earl, Harvey Faulkner and Waldon Boecker, Etc.

918 F.2d 1178 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Dec 12, 1990

When a defendant raises a qualified immunity defense, “whether the conduct of which the plaintiff complains violated clearly established law” is an “essentially legal question.” … Unit A Jan.1981) was clearly established law.

Bailey v. Iles

87 F.4th 275 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Nov 21, 2023

However, “[a] qualified immunity defense alters the usual summary judgment burden of proof” because the plaintiff, to overcome qualified immunity, “must rebut the defense by establishing a genuine [dispute of material … An officer is entitled to qualified immunity “if there is no violation, or if the conduct did not violate law clearly established at the time.” Id.

T.R. v. Lamar County Board of Education, The

25 F.4th 877 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Feb 4, 2022

“A right may be clearly established for qualified immunity purposes in one of three ways: (1) case law with indistin- guishable facts clearly establishing the constitutional right; (2) a broad statement of principle within … Since the Defendants’ actions violated a clearly established constitutional right, we conclude that the Defendants are not enti- tled to qualified immunity.

Giebel v. Sylvester

244 F.3d 1182 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Apr 12, 2001

was not clearly established at the time of Sylvester’s actions. … not entitled to qualified immunity.