Case law

Olufemi Anthony Lukan v. North Forest Isd, Gloria S. Scott, L v. Brisco

183 F.3d 342 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Sep 27, 1999

First, if the official’s conduct did not violate a clearly established constitutional right, the official is entitled to qualified immunity. See Jones v. Collins, 132 F.3d 1048, 1052 (5th Cir.1998). … Second, even if the official’s conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right, the official is nonetheless entitled to qualified immunity if his conduct was objectively reasonable. See id.

In Re Barbara H. Allen, Better Government Bureau, Incorporated, an Ohio Corporation v. Darrell v. McGraw Jr., Attorney General, State of West Virginia, Personally and in His Official Capacity Better Government Bureau Office of the Attorney General State of West Virginia, a Body Politic, a Corporate Instrumentality of Government With Limited Agency and Quasi-Sovereign Capacity Ken Hechler, Secretary of State, in His Official Capacity v. Donna Willis, Party in Interest. Better Government Bureau, Incorporated, an Ohio Corporation v. Darrell v. McGraw Jr., Attorney General, State of West Virginia, Personally and in His Official Capacity, Better Government Bureau Office of the Attorney General State of West Virginia, a Body Politic, a Corporate Instrumentality of Government With Limited Agency and Quasi-Sovereign Capacity Ken Hechler, Secretary of State, in His Official Capacity v. Barbara H. Allen Donna Willis, Parties in Interest. Better Government Bureau, Incorporated, an Ohio Corporation v. Darrell v. McGraw Jr., Attorney General, State of West Virginia, Personally and in His Official Capacity, Better Government Bureau Office of the Attorney General State of West Virginia, a Body Politic, a Corporate Instrumentality of Government With Limited Agency and Quasi-Sovereign Capacity Ken Hechler, Secretary of State, in His Official Capacity v. Barbara H. Allen Donna Willis, Parties in Interest

106 F.3d 582 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Feb 6, 1997

51 We hold, therefore, that an official who performs an act clearly established to be beyond the scope of his discretionary authority is not entitled to claim qualified immunity under § 1983. … established for qualified immunity purposes."

Anthony Brown v. Rodney Strain, Jr.

663 F.3d 245 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Nov 18, 2011

Qualified Immunity “The doctrine of qualified immunity protects public officials from liability for civil damages ‘insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of … was ‘clearly established’ at the time of the defendant’s alleged misconduct.”

Bowling v. Rector

584 F.3d 956 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Oct 26, 2009

clearly established law.” … “Summary judgment based on qualified immunity is appropriate if the law did not put the officer on notice that his conduct would be clearly unlawful.” Id.

Aversa v. United States

Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Oct 21, 1996

And a federal official is qualifiedly immune from suit for an alleged constitutional tort if his "conduct [did] not violate clearly established . . . constitutional rights of which a -3- 3 reasonable person would have known … Qualified immunity, however, must be decided according to the law in effect at the time of the alleged violation -- "implicit in the Harlow formulation . . . is a temporal dimension: the ______ right must have been clearly

Jantz v. Muci

976 F.2d 623 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Oct 9, 1992

Therefore, the court analyzed Plaintiff's qualified immunity defense under a rational basis test, holding that it was clearly established in 1988 that the government could not “ 'discriminate [against homosexuals] for the … Applying this precept as clearly established by one fellow district court, 1 the court held that Defendant was not entitled to the qualified immunity defense because he did *627 not offer a rational explanation for basing

Glow In One Mini Golf, LLC v. Tim Walz

37 F.4th 1365 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jun 16, 2022

“Qualified immunity is an immunity from suit, not merely a defense to liability,” and “[t]o avoid pretrial dismissal, a plaintiff must present facts showing the violation of a constitutional right that was clearly established … capacity of businesses deemed non-critical—was a taking under clearly established law.

Jamison v. Fischer

617 F. App'x 25 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jun 30, 2015

Qualified immunity shields government officials from civil damages liability unless (1) the official violated a statutory or constitutional right (2) that was clearly established at … The relevant question for qualified immunity purposes is whether the federal “constitutional right [an official] was alleged to have violated was clearly established at the time of the violation.” Davis v.

Jenkins v. Talladega City Board of Education

95 F.3d 1036 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Sep 23, 1996

the Anderson Court’s clarification of the appropriate level of generality at which a right must be “clearly established” for purposes of qualified immunity. … Justice was decided a few days after the events at issue here and, therefore, does not clearly establish the law in this case for qualified immunity purposes.

Hare ex rel. Hare v. City of Corinth

22 F.3d 612 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jun 10, 1994

to summary judgment on the grounds of qualified immunity. … Clearly Established Constitutional Injury In reviewing the denial of a summary judgment motion based on a claim of qualified immunity, the Supreme Court has taught that the first inquiry is whether the plaintiff has asserted

Hemphill v. Kincheloe

987 F.2d 589 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Mar 3, 1993

Prison officials who have implemented a digital rectal probe policy are entitled to qualified immunity if, in light of the clearly established law at the time, a reasonable official could have believed that his conduct was … To determine whether this standard is satisfied, we recently established a two-part analysis: “1) Was the law governing the official’s conduct clearly established?

Clement v. Gomez

298 F.3d 898 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Aug 6, 2002

Resolving the issue of qualified immunity involves a two-step inquiry. … Clearly Established Law The qualified immunity analysis requires us to further consider whether the rights of the prisoners in this case were clearly established at the time of *906 incident.

Harris v. Morales

231 F. App'x 773 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Feb 2, 2007

right and (2) that the right was clearly established at the time of the defendant’s unlawful conduct.” … The district court did not fully consider qualified immunity; it did not address whether the applicable constitutional right was “clearly established” at the time of Captain Gore’s actions.

Rivas v. Freeman

940 F.2d 1491 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Sep 9, 1991

In Harlow , the Supreme Court further stated that if the law regarding an individual’s constitutional or statutory rights is clearly established, the qualified immunity defense ordinarily should fail. … The district court denied the deputies’ claim to qualified immunity noting that their combined conduct violated Rivas’s clearly established constitutional rights.

Zia Trust Co. Ex Rel. Causey v. Montoya

597 F.3d 1150 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Mar 9, 2010

However, we review -5- summary judgment motions raising qualified immunity differently because “qualified immunity shields government officials . . . from liability for damages … “Ordinarily, in order for the law to be clearly established, there must be a Supreme Court or Tenth Circuit decision on point, or the clearly established weight of authority from other courts must have found the law to

Pena v. Deprisco

432 F.3d 98 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Dec 9, 2005

Qualified Immunity: Was the Constitutional Right Clearly Established? … Although it is a close question, we think that the substantive due process violation that the plaintiffs allege here was not clearly established for purposes of qualified immunity.

Charles D. Cronen v. Texas Department of Human Services, Jean Roberts, Ann Valdez-Haines, Donna L. Burns, Socorro Alonzo, and the State of Texas

977 F.2d 934 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Nov 23, 1992

granted qualified immunity from damage suits. … If defendants refused to follow well-established federal regulations, they would violate clearly established rights.

Alan Beaman v. Dave Warner

776 F.3d 500 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jan 13, 2015

An official is entitled to qualified immunity for conduct that does not violate clearly established statutory or constitu- 14 No. 14-1195 tional rights of which a reasonable … The second question in the qualified immunity analysis is whether the right at issue was clearly established at the time and under the circumstances presented.

Ralph Walsh, Jr. v. Lisa Hodge

975 F.3d 475 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Sep 15, 2020

Because Walsh’s deprivations of due process were not clearly established constitutional rights, we REVERSE the district court’s denial of qualified immunity and RENDER judgment in favor of Defendants. … immunity analysis: was Walsh’s constitutional right clearly established?

Beier v. Lewiston, City Of

354 F.3d 1058 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jan 14, 2004

The Supreme Court reasoned that the consequences of such an argument would be "intolerable," because the qualified immunity right would be easily defeated as long as the complaint alleges violation of one clearly established … Clearly Established Right 43 " `[C]learly established' for purposes of qualified immunity means that `[t]he contours of the right must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing