Case law

Tina Marie Sellers, by and Through Her Guardian, Natural Mother, and Next Friend, Joann Sellers Albert F. Deuser Phyllis Menke v. Robert J. Baer John J. Frank James E. Mosbacher William H. Young Mayor Vincent Schoemehl Lawrence J. King United States of America, David Vecera, National Park Ranger Edward Bridges, National Park Ranger Dennis Burnett, Chief Ranger, Tina Marie Sellers, by and Through Her Guardian, Natural Mother, and Next Friend, Joann Sellers Albert F. Deuser Phyllis Menke v. Robert J. Baer John J. Frank James E. Mosbacher William H. Young Mayor Vincent Schoemehl Lawrence J. King United States of America, David Vecera, National Park Ranger Edward Bridges, National Park Ranger Dennis Burnett, Chief Ranger, Tina Marie Sellers, by and Through Her Guardian, Natural Mother, and Next Friend, Joann Sellers Albert F. Deuser Phyllis Menke v. Robert J. Baer John J. Frank James E. Mosbacher William H. Young Mayor Vincent Schoemehl Lawrence J. King, United States of America David Vecera, National Park Ranger Edward Bridges, National Park Ranger Dennis Burnett, Chief Ranger

28 F.3d 895 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Aug 16, 1994

established under current law. 6 Accordingly, Vecera, Bridges, Burnett, and King are entitled to qualified immunity. … We hold that the conduct of the officers did not violate a clearly established constitutional right of which a reasonable officer would have known, and the officers therefore are entitled to qualified immunity.

Adkins v. Rodriguez

59 F.3d 1034 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jul 6, 1995

Having raised the defense of qualified immunity, defendant then places the onus on the plaintiff to establish defendant has violated a clearly established law. Hovater v. Robinson, 1 F.3d 1063, 1066 (10th Cir.1993). … Because qualified immunity is an affirmative defense to a section 1983 action, providing immunity from suit from the outset, we have stated, "[t]he question of qualified immunity therefore dovetails almost precisely with

Eric Thurairajah v. Trooper Lagarian Cross

3 F.4th 1017 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jul 2, 2021

-4- Specifically, he asserts that, under Arkansas law, “malice” is equated with the “clearly established” prong of federal qualified immunity and that no analysis of Trooper Cross … established, and raised a genuine issue of fact as to whether the official would have known that the conduct violated that clearly established right.

Kovats v. Rutgers, The State University

822 F.2d 1303 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jun 30, 1987

The Rutgers officials concede that were it clearly established that Rutgers’ regulations provide for de facto tenure by length of service, they would not be entitled to qualified immunity because Perry and Roth established … The court found that Varma’s claim implicated this clearly established law and, for that reason, denied Rutgers’ motion for summary judgment on the qualified immunity issue.

Ecclesiastical Washington v. Larry Denney

900 F.3d 549 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Aug 13, 2018

The officials appeal, arguing that (1) Washington failed to offer sufficient evidence to prove that they violated his clearly established Eighth Amendment rights and, therefore, they are entitled to qualified immunity; and … Discussion The corrections officials appeal, arguing that (1) they are entitled to qualified immunity because Washington failed to offer sufficient evidence to prove that they violated his clearly established Eighth

Radecki v. Barela

146 F.3d 1227 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jun 24, 1998

Qualified immunity protects government officials from individual liability in a section 1983 action unless the officials violated clearly established constitutional rights. See Harlow v. … City and County of Denver, 960 F.2d 1493 (10th Cir. 1992), clearly established that Deputy Barela’s conduct was unconstitutional. Thus, the district court again denied qualified immunity to Deputy Barela.

Stoneking v. Bradford Area School District

882 F.2d 720 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Aug 16, 1989

Bradford Area School Dist., 667 F.Supp. 1088, 1098 (W.D.Pa.1987). *723 On appeal, defendants argued that they were entitled to qualified immunity because they had no clearly established duty to protect Stoneking, and therefore … The defendants are entitled to qualified immunity if reasonable officials in the defendants’ position at the relevant time could have believed, in light of clearly established law, that their conduct comported with established

Russell v. Coughlin

910 F.2d 75 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Aug 2, 1990

On the eve of trial, defendants moved for summary judgment arguing that because Russell had no clearly established liberty interest in remaining out of keeplock they were protected by qualified immunity. … Even when such rights are clearly established, qualified immunity also protects a government official "if it was objectively reasonable for [the official] to believe that his acts did not violate those rights."

Mara v. Rilling

921 F.3d 48 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Apr 9, 2019

But  even  if  the  answer  is  yes,  or  not  definitively  no,  a  defendant  may  still  be  entitled  to  qualified  immunity  if  the  right  was  not  clearly  established  at  the  time  of  his  challenged actions … The district court still needed to address the second qualified  immunity  inquiry,  i.e.,  whether  the  rights  at  issue  were  clearly  established  in  the  context  presented,  such  that  every  reasonable  officer

Jacob v. Township of West Bloomfield

531 F.3d 385 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 3, 2008

This second prong of the qualified immunity test clearly weighs in Plaintiffs favor. … claim of qualified immunity.

Kevin Richardson v. Donald Selsky, Clement Capuano, William Fenton, Bernard Lonczak

5 F.3d 616 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Sep 22, 1993

Public officials are entitled to qualified immunity from liability for civil damages so long as their conduct does not violate a clearly established statutory or constitutional right. See Harlow v. … In Rejecting the officer’s qualified immunity defense, we concluded that an “inmate’s right not to be adjudicated guilty without some evidence to support that finding was clearly established by 1988, when the hearing occurred

Brockington v. Boykins

637 F.3d 503 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Mar 22, 2011

The court also denied Boykins’ motion to dismiss on the doctrine of qualified immunity in a one-sentence order that contained no reasoning. The denial of qualified immunity is an immediately appeal- able order. … "Qualified immunity shields government officials perform- ing discretionary functions from personal-capacity liability for civil damages under § 1983, insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory

Johnson-El v. Schoemehl

878 F.2d 1043 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jul 17, 1989

of clearly established law. … Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 640 , 107 S.Ct. 3034, 3039 (1987) (to overcome qualified immunity, a plaintiff must allege that the official violated a clearly established right, the contours of which are sufficiently clear that

Michael M. Gorman v. Renault Robinson, George C. Cramer, and William T. Salem

977 F.2d 350 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Oct 9, 1992

In a motion for summary judgment, the defendants argued that the doctrine of qualified immunity shielded them from suit. … The Supreme Court has made clear that qualified immunity is an immunity from suit rather than a defense to liability. Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 529 , 105 S.Ct. 2806, 2817 , 86 L.Ed.2d 411 (1985).

Hamilton v. Leavy

322 F.3d 776 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Feb 28, 2003

Id. 58 Turning to the second prong of the qualified immunity defense, the District Court held that "Hamilton's right to be protected from known risks was clearly established in August 5, 1992." … As we have previously explained, however, "to defeat qualified immunity it is not sufficient that the right at issue be clearly established as a general matter.

Clemmons v. Armontrout

477 F.3d 962 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Feb 12, 2007

Qualified Immunity 10 We review de novo the district court's denial of qualified immunity to Investigator Brooks. McClendon v. … To determine whether a right is "clearly established," we ask "whether it would be clear to a reasonable officer that his conduct was unlawful in the situation he confronted."

Jerry Turpin and Bonnie Turpin v. The County of Rock, Nebraska Galen Svoboda, in His Official Capacity and Jim Anderson, in His Official Capacity

262 F.3d 779 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Aug 21, 2001

Qualified immunity shields governmental officials from personal liability if their actions, even if unlawful, were “nevertheless objectively reasonable in light of the clearly established law at the time of the events in … The inquiry in determining whether the officers are entitled to qualified immunity focuses on whether the Appellants have asserted a violation of a clearly-established constitutional right and, if so, whether there are genuine

Vann v. City of Southaven, Mississippi

876 F.3d 133 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Nov 22, 2017

“A qualified immunity defense alters the usual summary judgment burden of proof. … “The . dispositive question is ‘whether the violative nature of particular conduct is clearly established.’ ” Mullenix v.

Phillip Ransom v. Anthony Grisafe

790 F.3d 804 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jun 22, 2015

Qualified immunity protects government officials “ ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have … To overcome the defense of qualified immuni *811 ty, Ransom must have shown that the officers’ actions violated a constitutional right that was “clearly established” at the time of their alleged misconduct.

Winder v. Gallardo

118 F.4th 638 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Sep 27, 2024

Qualified immunity protects government officials “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known … We decline Appellants’ invitation to upend qualified immunity. Before delving into their case’s substance, Appellants first request that we upend qualified immunity outright.