Case law

Brockinton v. City of Sherwood

503 F.3d 667 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Oct 4, 2007

Qualified immunity protects governmental officials from liability for civil damages when they are performing discretionary functions and their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights … “[T]o withstand a motion for summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds, a civil rights plaintiff must (1) assert a violation of a constitutional right; (2)demonstrate that the alleged right is clearly established; and

Shawn C. Pride, Plaintiff-Counter-Defendant-Appellant v. Various John Does, Trooper Jan Lamb, Defendant-Counter-Claimant-Appellee

997 F.2d 712 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jun 15, 1993

Because Officer Lamb raised the defense of qualified immunity, it was incumbent upon Pride to “show that the law was clearly established when the alleged violation occurred and come forward with facts or allegations sufficient … to show that the official violated the clearly established law.”

Foster v. Missouri Department of Health & Senior Services

736 F.3d 759 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Nov 13, 2013

was clearly established at the time of the defendant's alleged misconduct." … We conclude that placing Essie Foster on the disqualification list in these circumstances was not a deprivation of the Fosters' clearly established due process rights and that Hansen and Watkins are thus entitled to qualified

Dukore v. District of Columbia

799 F.3d 1137 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Aug 25, 2015

. 3 The doctrine of qualified immunity entitles officers to immunity from suit unless their conduct violated “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … If the right in question was not clearly established, we need not broach the question of whether a constitutional violation occurred because the officers are entitled to qualified immunity regardless.

Hare Ex Rel. Hare v. City of Corinth

135 F.3d 320 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Mar 5, 1998

The bifurcated test for qualified immunity is quite familiar: (1) whether the plaintiff has alleged a violation of a clearly established constitutional right; and, (2) if so, whether the defendant’s … The second prong of the qualified immunity test is better understood as two separate inquiries: whether the allegedly violated constitutional rights were clearly established at the time of the incident;

Doe ex rel. Doe v. Petaluma City School District

54 F.3d 1447 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · May 12, 1995

“On review of a denial of qualified immunity, ‘[w]e have jurisdiction only to decide if defendant’s conduct violated ... clearly established [law].’ ” Pelletier v. … “[S]pecifie binding precedent is not required to show that a right is clearly established for qualified immunity purposes.” Maraziti, 953 F.2d at 525 , quoting Brady v.

Geoffrey J. Waldau v. Merit Systems Protection Board

19 F.3d 1395 · Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · Mar 16, 1994

Such a case exists when a petitioner raises nonfrivolous allegations of controverted jurisdictional facts on which the MSPB’s jurisdiction is clearly established if these facts are proven. See, e.g., Burgess v. … It is clearly not for this court on appeal to consider for the first time the evidence of record to determine whether Waldau qualifies as a confidential employee.

Edward Joseph X. Chapman v. George Pickett

586 F.2d 22 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Oct 30, 1978

Strickland rule, the immunity defense would be unavailing to petitioners if the constitutional right allegedly infringed by them was clearly established at the time of their challenged conduct, if they knew or should have … There can be no serious contention with the fact that the right to be free from disproportionate punishment has long been “clearly established.”

Bliss v. Franco

446 F.3d 1036 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Apr 25, 2006

right was clearly established when the alleged violation occurred.” … Trask satisfy their burdens under the first two prongs of qualified immunity analysis. Their allegations under the Fourth Amendment, if true, establish a constitutional violation.

Nieto v. San Perlita Independent School District

894 F.2d 174 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Feb 16, 1990

the plaintiff’s clearly established right to protected speech. … Consequently, the defendants did not violate a clearly established constitutional right secured to Nieto. They are therefore entitled to qualified immunity and dismissal from this suit.

Greene v. Camreta

588 F.3d 1011 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Dec 10, 2009

If a government official “could ... have reasonably but mistakenly believed that his or her conduct did not violate a clearly established constitutional right,” he is entitled to qualified immunity. Jackson v. … Because Camreta’s alleged misrepresentation in support of his request for a protective custody order — again, assuming it occurred — violated the Greenes’ clearly established rights, he is not entitled to qualified immunity

Jamie Hamilton v. Gary T. Myers, Executive Director of the Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency

281 F.3d 520 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 10, 2002

Accordingly, any “objectively reasonable” action by a state officer, as assessed in the light of clearly established law at the time of the conduct at issue, will be insulated by qualified immunity. … Thus, even if a public officer has deprived the plaintiff of a federal right, qualified immunity will apply if an objectively reasonable official would not have understood, by referencing clearly established law, that his

McCray v. Lee

963 F.3d 110 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jun 18, 2020

They argued that the Complaint failed to state a claim under the 2 Eighth Amendment; that they were entitled to qualified immunity on the ground that 3 no such Eighth Amendment rights had been clearly established; … Qualified immunity shields 2 officials "from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate 3 clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person 4 would

Darryl Lunon v. Kathy Botsford

946 F.3d 425 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Dec 27, 2019

Discussion Qualified immunity shields public officials from liability for civil damages if their conduct does not “violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would … I agree with the court insofar as it holds that the appellants are entitled to qualified immunity because they did not violate any clearly established right of appellee Lunon.

Kim Shultz v. Bryan Buchanan

829 F.3d 943 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jul 19, 2016

To defeat qualified immunity, the evidence must support a finding that Buchanan violated a clearly established constitutional right. … The entry thus did not violate Shultz’s clearly established rights.

Flint Electric Membership Corp. v. Whitworth

68 F.3d 1309 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Nov 15, 1995

The court concluded that the DOC officials should have known they were required to follow competitive bidding procedures under clearly established state law, thus, they were not entitled to … qualified immunity from § 1983 monetary liability.

Gubitosi v. Kapica

154 F.3d 30 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Aug 19, 1998

Pelletier, 516 U.S. 299, 309 , 116 S.Ct. 834 , 133 L.Ed.2d 773 (1996)), and proceed to consider whether the qualified immunity defense is established as a matter of law. 4 Here the gravamen of Kapica's qualified immunity … As a result, his qualified immunity defense is established as a matter of law. 13 (2) Accordingly, we vacate so much of the district court's order of May 9, 1997 as denied Kapica's motion for summary judgment based on qualified

Harris v. DeBellis

658 F. App'x 940 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 10, 2016

Because De-Bellis asserts qualified immunity, however, we may first consider whether DeBellis violated clearly established law. … Under the clearly established law prong of qualified immunity analysis, DeBellis is entitled to summary judgment unless Harris can identify a genuine issue of fact regarding whether DeBellis had arguable probable cause to

Charles F. Finsel v. Thomas Cruppenink, in His Individual and Official Capacities as Vermilion County Deputy Sheriff

326 F.3d 903 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Apr 21, 2003

Cruppenink filed a motion for summary judgment based on qualified immunity as to his entry into the motel room. … The deputy’s motion for qualified immunity was also denied. That decision is the *906 subject of this appeal.

Thomas J. McDonnell v. Michael Cournia, Richard Menzel, Gary Moe, Thomas Christopher

990 F.2d 963 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Apr 7, 1993

To determine whether an official’s conduct violates clearly established law requires a two-step inquiry. First, the plaintiff must show that the law was clearly established when the challenged conduct occurred. … In this case, then, qualified immunity shields the defendant police officers from McDonnell’s damage action if “a reasonable officer could have believed [McDonnell’s arrest] to be lawful, in light of clearly established law