Case law

Sheck Mulbah v. Cody Jansen

55 F.4th 1164 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Dec 22, 2022

The district court found a genuine dispute of material fact about whether there was probable cause to stop the van and also found the law governing the stop was clearly established. … Similarly, to determine whether Jansen violated clearly established law, we need to know what happened.

Samuel Campbell v. City of Springboro, Ohio

700 F.3d 779 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Nov 29, 2012

Qualified immunity “shields government officials performing discretionary functions from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … Clearly Established Right For a right to be “clearly established,” “[t]he contours of that right must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that right.”

Brenda Davis v. Michelle L. Munger

11 F.4th 604 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Aug 24, 2021

A public official is entitled to qualified immunity unless: (1) their conduct violated a constitutional right, and (2) that right was clearly established. Williams v. … Qualified immunity is “appropriate where no reasonable fact finder could conclude that the facts when viewed in a light most favorable to the plaintiff show that the officers’ conduct violated a clearly established constitutional

Miguel A. Figueroa-Rodriguez v. Jorge L. Aquino, Etc.

863 F.2d 1037 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Dec 9, 1988

See DeAbadia, 792 F.2d at 1193 (“the very fact that there is a reasonable dispute means that, from the standpoint of qualified immunity, the law was not clearly established in plaintiff’s favor”). … Given this focus, Aquino was entitled to qualified immunity because it was not clearly established in January 1985 that political affiliation was not an appropriate requirement for the effective performance of the job of

Ajala v. Tom

658 F. App'x 805 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jul 22, 2016

shown that their conduct violated clearly established law in 2007. … On appeal Ajala argues that the district court erred in granting qualified immunity to the Defendants because, he says, it was clearly established by 2007 that using restraints to inflict prolonged, unnecessary pain on a

Cox v. Wilson

959 F.3d 1249 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · May 22, 2020

Yet the Pauly officers were protected by qualified immunity because of the absence of clearly established law prohibiting their conduct. … Moreover, were we to consider this argument, it would fail because the clearly-established-law component of qualified immunity is not a jury issue. See Griess v.

Wayne Gerling v. Matthew Waite

2 F.4th 737 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jun 23, 2021

Qualified immunity protects officers from suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 unless their conduct violates “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. … When a defendant asserts that he is entitled to qualified immunity, the plaintiff must show that the defendant violated his constitutional right, and that the right was “clearly established” at the time of the incident.

Koubriti v. Convertino

593 F.3d 459 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Feb 3, 2010

The court suggested that Convertino would only have qualified immunity for these claims. It did not analyze the claims under the qualified immunity standard, however. … On the other hand, government officials generally enjoy a presumption of qualified immunity from civil lawsuits, such that they are “shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly

Alan D. Whatley v. Robert E. Philo

817 F.2d 19 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · May 18, 1987

GEE, Circuit Judge: This § 1988 case presents the question whether the plaintiff has vitiated the defendants’ qualified immunity defense. … The defendants asserted their qualified immunity defense. The district court dismissed on summary judgment, 1 on the basis that Whatley had failed to overcome the immunity defense.

Michael Kingsley v. Stan Hendrickson

801 F.3d 828 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Sep 8, 2015

The defendants take a different position; in their view, the decision of the Supreme Court en- titles them to qualified immunity. … In § 1983 actions, “[q]ualified immunity shields government officials from civil damages liability unless the official violated a statutory or constitutional right that was clearly established at the time of the challenged

Allen L. Nicklasson v. Don Roper, Warden, Potosi Correctional Center

491 F.3d 830 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jun 21, 2007

A state court decision involves an “unreasonable application” of clearly established federal law if, in the federal court’s independent judgment “the relevant state-court decision [not only] applied clearly established federal … Nicklasson therefore argues that the issues presented represent an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law set forth in Morgan v.

Haley Olson v. County of Grant

127 F.4th 1193 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Feb 10, 2025

immunity because any constitutional violation was not clearly established. … Though Carpenter violated Olson’s Fourth Amendment rights, the law was not clearly established at the time, thus entitling Carpenter to qualified immunity. A.

Andre Guite v. James Wright Steven James Lashomb

147 F.3d 747 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jun 26, 1998

The defendants filed a motion for summary judgment asserting qualified immunity. … First, they appeal the district court’s denial of summary judgment based on qualified immunity.

Stainback v. Dixon

569 F.3d 767 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jun 30, 2009

To determine whether a defendant is entitled to qualified immunity, courts must address two issues: (1) whether the defendant violated the plaintiffs constitutional rights and (2) whether the right at issue was clearly established … Only if a constitutional violation was established could a court address the second inquiry: whether the plaintiffs right was clearly established at the time of the violation.

Trigalet v. Young

54 F.3d 645 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · May 2, 1995

The court held that the officers were not entitled to qualified immunity on the Trigalets’ substantive due process claim upon concluding that, at the time of the incident, the law was clearly established that the officers … The court concluded that the officers were not entitled to qualified immunity because the law under which defendants actions could form the basis of a constitutional claim became clearly established on March 1, 1990, when

Larry and Karen Spielman v. Sara C. Hildebrand and Don Madsen

873 F.2d 1377 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · May 3, 1989

. § 1983 and, if so, whether such rights were clearly established at the time of the deprivation, thereby divesting the defendants of qualified immunity from suit for their actions in this matter. We affirm. I. … As with the constitutional claim, the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity unless the Spielmans can show the deprivation of a clearly established right.

Clayton Franklin v. Franklin County, Arkansas

956 F.3d 1060 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Apr 24, 2020

The Griffiths are entitled to qualified immunity on their federal claim if their conduct did not violate clearly established constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would know. See White v. Pauly, 137 S. … Broadly defined rights by themselves do not create clearly established law outside an "obvious case," see Kisela v. Hughes, 138 S.

Parrish v. Ball

594 F.3d 993 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Feb 10, 2010

Qualified immunity shields government officials from liability in their individual capacity so long as the official has not violated “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would … was clearly established at the time of the deprivation.”

Baird v. Renbarger

576 F.3d 340 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Aug 3, 2009

Renbarger’s qualified immunity defense. … We therefore proceed to the second step of the qualified-immunity inquiry and ask whether the right at issue was clearly established: [T]he right the official is alleged to have violated must have been “clearly established

Limone v. Condon

372 F.3d 39 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Jun 14, 2004

Qualified immunity is a judge-made doctrine. … Having erected this straw man, the appellants then shred it: although Brady was decided prior to 1967, they assert that it was not clearly established then (indeed, it may not be clearly established today) that the