Case law

Lyles v. Sparks

79 F.3d 372 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Mar 19, 1996

but also of federal law that was "clearly established" at the time the alleged conduct occurred. … established, the district court erred in declining to afford Green and Krautheim qualified immunity from the surviving constitutional tort claims against them.

Wilson v. Meeks

52 F.3d 1547 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Apr 20, 1995

However, qualified immunity is not a defense when officials’ actions violate clearly established constitutional rights. Quezada, 944 F.2d at 718 . … We conclude the facts here do not violate a clearly established duty under the constitution. The district court erred in refusing to grant summary judgment based on qualified immunity. VI.

Estate of Phillips v. District of Columbia

455 F.3d 397 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Aug 1, 2006

We conclude that the district court erred in denying Edwards qualified immunity because the Firefighters did not allege the violation of a clearly established constitutional right; that is, even if Edwards’s failure to remedy … Qualified immunity under section 1983 shields a state or local official from personal liability unless his action violated a “clearly established statutory or constitutional right[] of which a reasonable person would have

Jennings v. Patton

635 F.3d 655 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Mar 9, 2011

B 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 which a reasonable … immunity, inquiring: (1) whether the facts that the plaintiff has alleged make out a violation of a constitutional right; and (2) whether the right at issue was “clearly established” at the time of the defendant’s alleged

Teresa Buchanan v. F. Alexander

919 F.3d 847 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Mar 22, 2019

The qualified immunity inquiry comprises two questions: (1) “whether the defendant violated the plaintiff’s constitutional rights” and (2) whether that right was clearly established. 32 “We now have discretion to skip the … That is because of the second part of the qualified immunity inquiry, which requires a plaintiff to show that any violation of rights was clearly established at the time the conduct occurred.

TonyaMarie Adams v. Nathan Trimble

Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jul 24, 2023

Trimble appeals, claiming he is entitled to qualified immunity because the law was not clearly established. … As such, the evidence does not show a violation of a clearly established constitutional right, and qualified immunity is appropriate here.

Franz v. Lytle

997 F.2d 784 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jun 29, 1993

Finding no relevant, clearly established legal norm on the issue evidenced by the split in the Circuits, the court affirmed the grant of qualified immunity. … At the time of defendant’s actions, the law was clearly established that the information the officer possessed rendered the present war-rantless searches objectively unreasonable barring his claim of qualified immunity so

Don Blankenship v. Joe Manchin, Iii, in His Individual Capacity and in His Official Capacity as Governor of the State of West Virginia

471 F.3d 523 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Dec 20, 2006

Finding a constitutional violation of a clearly established right, the district court denied the application of qualified immunity. This appeal followed. II. … As Blankenship’s complaint alleges a constitutional violation of a clearly established right, qualified immunity does not attach to the Governor’s actions.

Harris v. Champion

51 F.3d 901 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Mar 30, 1995

[T]he plaintiff must do more than identify in the abstract a clearly established right and allege that the defendant has violated it. … , or establish that defendants’ actions were clearly prohibited at the time they were taken. 5 See id.

Boswell v. County of Sherburne

849 F.2d 1117 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jun 21, 1988

were clearly established at the time of the challenged actions * * Mitchell v. … This court has in the past taken a broad view of what constitutes “clearly established law” for the purposes of a qualified immunity inquiry, requiring some but not precise factual correspondence with precedents and demanding

Joseph v. Patterson

795 F.2d 549 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 2, 1986

If the law which the defendant’s conduct is alleged to have violated is clearly established, then the qualified immunity defense must fail and discovery proceed. … If the law is not clearly established, the defendant is immune and summary judgment is proper. Windsor, 719 F.2d at 165 .

Sabo v. City of Mentor

657 F.3d 332 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Sep 12, 2011

Tkach appeals the district court’s denial of qualified immunity. … ) the issue appealed concerned whether a given set of facts showed a violation of clearly established law.

Prager v. LaFaver

180 F.3d 1185 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jun 15, 1999

LaFaver contends the law did not clearly establish that the First Amendment protected Mr. Prager’s speech. Pickering v. … We turn to the question of whether this law was clearly established when Mr. LaFaver acted against Mr. Prager.

Ober v. Evanko

80 F. App'x 196 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Oct 21, 2003

The District Court denied Appellants’ motion, finding that Appellants violated Ober’s clearly established First Amendment rights and, thus, were not entitled to qualified immunity. … Qualified immunity shields “government officials performing discretionary functions ... from liability from civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of

Gratsch v. Hamilton County

12 F. App'x 193 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 3, 2001

a given set of facts violates clearly established law.” ’ Id. … As discussed above, evaluation of a qualified immunity claim involves answering two questions: 1) did the plaintiff suffer a deprivation of his clearly established constitutional rights; and 2) did the defendant act in an

John Allen Caldwell v. Woodford County Chief Jailer, James Moore, Harry Stephen Tracy Rick Adkins Daniel E. Clark W. Keith Broughton

968 F.2d 595 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 1, 1992

The question whether an official is protected by qualified immunity turns on “the objective legal reasonableness” of the action, assessed in light of the legal rules that were “clearly established” at the time the action … In Russo , we granted qualified immunity to the officers and noted that the use of a taser in order to avoid a dangerous situation or the resort to even greater force did not violate clearly established law.

Kiles v. City of North Las Vegas

276 F. App'x 620 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · May 1, 2008

MEMORANDUM ** Robinson Reed appeals the district court’s denial of qualified immunity in this Section 1983 excessive force suit. We affirm. … The second step in qualified immunity analysis is whether the constitutional right at issue was clearly established at the time of the violation.

Whalen v. Massachusetts Trial Court

397 F.3d 19 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Feb 4, 2005

Moreover, the individual defendants claimed the shield of qualified immunity, arguing that Whalen did not have a clearly established constitutional right to a hearing before a budget-driven termination of his position' — … The “Clearly Established Right” and “Reasonableness” It is beyond debate that, as a general matter, the constitutional right to due process claimed by Whalen was clearly established at the time he was laid off.

Mendoza v. United States Immigration & Customs Enforcement

849 F.3d 408 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Feb 21, 2017

Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, government officials are generally immune from civil liability so long as "their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … To determine whether a government official is entitled to qualified immunity, we must ask (1) whether the official's action violated a constitutional right; and (2) whether the violated right was clearly established.

Mee v. Ortega

967 F.2d 423 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jun 18, 1992

Accordingly, "summary judgment in favor of a defendant seeking qualified immunity is appropriate only if the constitutional standards governing the challenged conduct were not clearly established." Rex v. … Ortega on the basis of qualified immunity. "[T]he plaintiff cannot simply identify a clearly established right in the abstract and allege that the defendant has violated it." Hilliard v.