Case law

H.A.L. Ex Rel. Lewis v. Foltz

551 F.3d 1227 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Dec 15, 2008

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s denial of Defendants’ motion to dismiss based on qualified immunity. … Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s denial of Defendants’ motion to dismiss based on qualified immunity.6 AFFIRMED. 6 We do not hint about the availability of qualified immunity on summary

95 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 8020, 95 Daily Journal D.A.R. 13,778 Sue Kruse and Lance Caspary, on Behalf of Themselves and Their Minor Son Kanoa v. State of Hawai'i

68 F.3d 331 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Oct 12, 1995

When a public official asserts qualified immunity from liability in a Sec. 1983 action, we must determine whether (1) the law governing the official's conduct was clearly established and (2) whether under that law, an official … Clearly Established Right 32 While the right the official is alleged to have violated must have been "clearly established" in a "particularized" sense, "this is not to say that an official action is protected by qualified

Kevin R. Black v. Al C. Parke, Kenneth Case, Walt Chapleau, and Tom Campbell

4 F.3d 442 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Sep 9, 1993

Defendants maintain that they are entitled to qualified immunity because the law is not so clearly established that they would have known that their conduct was unlawful. … However, if genuine issues of material fact exist as to whether the defendants actually did commit acts that would violate a clearly established right, then summary judgment on qualified immunity is improper. Poe v.

Brumfield v. Hollins

551 F.3d 322 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Dec 2, 2008

Analysis “Qualified immunity protects public officials from suit unless their conduct violates a clearly established constitutional right.” Mace v. City of Palestine, 333 F.3d 621, 623 (5th Cir. 2003). … In the qualified immunity analysis, “[t]he subjective deliberate indifference standard serves only to demonstrate the clearly established law in effect at the time of the incident . . .

Lewis v. City of Ft. Collins

903 F.2d 752 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · May 14, 1990

In some cases, discovery may be necessary to determine whether the defendants’ challenged conduct violated clearly established law and thus, whether defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. … Objective Reasonableness Government officials performing discretionary functions are entitled to qualified immunity insofar as their conduct does not violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which

Maria Salim, Administratrix of the Estate of Eric Reyes, I/o v. William Proulx

93 F.3d 86 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Aug 23, 1996

have violated was clearly established. … We need to determine only whether, on plaintiffs version, an immunity defense is established as a matter of law. C. Merits of Qualified Immunity Defense The right to be free of excessive force is clearly established.

City of Escondido v. Emmons

586 U.S. 38 · Supreme Court of the United States · Jan 7, 2019

The question in this qualified immunity case is whether two police officers violated clearly established law when they forcibly apprehended a man at the scene of a reported domestic violence incident. … Assuming without deciding that a court of appeals decision may constitute clearly established law for purposes of qualified immunity, see City and County of San Francisco v. Sheehan, 575 U.

Dimarco-Zappa v. Cabanillas

238 F.3d 25 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Jan 19, 2001

right at issue was not clearly established under Harlow v. … In contrast with their other arguments, defendants did not waive the qualified immunity argument. 13 However, defendants *36 based their immunity argument primarily on the contention that no clearly established right was

Carmen Nereida-Gonzalez v. Cirilo Tirado-Delgado

990 F.2d 701 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Apr 14, 1993

Qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions from civil liability for money damages when their conduct does not violate “clearly established” statutory or constitutional rights of which … to don the cloak of qualified immunity.

Hamilton Ex Rel. Hamilton v. Cannon

80 F.3d 1525 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Apr 19, 1996

However, even if Ross were indistinguishable, Seventh Circuit decisions can not clearly establish the law for purposes of qualified immunity in this circuit. E.g., D'Aguanno v. … McMillian, 939 F.2d 1479, 1497-98 & n. 32 (11th Cir.1991) (law can be "clearly established" for qualified immunity purposes by decisions of U.S.

Tony Velasquez v. John Senko

813 F.2d 1509 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Apr 6, 1987

The court found that appellants failed to address the pertinent issue for a claim of qualified immunity: whether the law they were accused of violating was clearly established. … qualified immunity claim meets Cohen "separate from the merits" test because it involves only "legal determination that a given proposition of law was not clearly established"); id.

Robert A. Borucki v. W. Michael Ryan, Etc.

827 F.2d 836 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Aug 27, 1987

Conclusion In view of the foregoing, we hold that Ryan’s actions did not violate a clearly established constitutional right of privacy and that he is therefore entitled to qualified immunity. … Murchek, 766 F.2d 1494 , 1500-01 (11th Cir.l985)(officials had qualified immunity where federal due process rights not clearly established, although state statutory due process rights were clearly established); Powers v.

In Re State Police Litigation

88 F.3d 111 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jul 3, 1996

On appeal, defendants contend that they are entitled to qualified immunity principally because at the pertinent times it was not clearly established that tape-recording telephone calls, without ever listening to them, violated … Summary judgment dismissing a claim on the basis of the defendants' qualified-immunity defense may thus be granted if the court finds that the asserted rights were not clearly established, or if the evidence is such that,

Lawrence Thompson v. Pete Copeland

885 F.3d 582 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Mar 13, 2018

Dissenting, Judge Christen would hold that the police officer was not entitled to qualified immunity on plaintiff’s excessive force claim because plaintiff’s right not to have a gun pointed at his head was clearly established … Conclusion Because the law was not clearly established within the parameters dictated by the Supreme Court, Copeland is entitled to qualified immunity and the grant of summary judgment is AFFIRMED.

Eva Garrett, Individually and as Administratrix for the Estate of Linda Kay Johnson, Deceased v. Lloyd Rader and Norman Smith

831 F.2d 202 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Oct 13, 1987

They claim that they are entitled to the protection of qualified immunity to damage liability under Section 1983 because they did not violate any “clearly established” rules relating to the care of mentally retarded children … In addition, the court ruled that the question of qualified immunity should await a development of a factual record.

Brown v. City of New York

862 F.3d 182 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jul 5, 2017

“Qualified 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 conduct.” … Brown argues that the two officers “were not entitled to qualified immunity since they violated clearly established law by using substantial and unnecessary force to arrest Ms.

Sandoval v. Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department

756 F.3d 1154 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jul 1, 2014

LAS VEGAS METRO POLICE DEP’T 11 For qualified immunity purposes, in determining whether a constitutional right was clearly established, it is not enough that there is a generally established proposition … LAS VEGAS METRO POLICE DEP’T constitutional right was clearly established for qualified immunity purposes. See also Tekle v.

Sabrina Fields v. City of Omaha, Douglas County, Nebraska, a Municipal Corporation, & Vytautas MacKevicius

810 F.2d 830 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Feb 9, 1987

Officer Mackevicius can claim qualified immunity in the present case if his actions did not violate clearly established constitutional rights of which he should have known. … The officer may not, therefore, claim qualified immunity in this case because he failed to follow clearly established constitutional law of which he should have known.

Hal Stanley v. Katherine Finnegan

899 F.3d 623 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Aug 10, 2018

of child abuse.2 2 On the merits, to defeat a qualified immunity defense, plaintiff has the burden of proving that defendant’s conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right. … “Qualified immunity protects public officials from § 1983 damage actions if their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”

Slone v. Herman

983 F.2d 107 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Feb 5, 1993

Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 , 102 S.Ct. 2727, 2738 , 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982), the Supreme Court held that, in order for officials to lose their qualified immunity, their conduct must violate "clearly established statutory … The Court stated that the agent was entitled to qualified immunity if, "in light of the clearly established principles governing warrantless searches, he could, as a matter of law, reasonably have believed that the search