Case law

Fairchild v. Coryell Cty

40 F.4th 359 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jul 14, 2022

IV The jailers, however, can assert qualified immunity. They are liable for unlawful conduct only if their actions violated “clearly established” constitutional rights. Pearson v. … Timpa, 20 F.4th at 1028–29 (explaining that qualified immunity may provide a defense at the early stages of an encounter but not later stages when the continued use of force violates clearly established law); Aguirre

Karla Kaye Kuehl v. Stephen P. Burtis Terry Satterlee Other John Doe City of Sioux Falls Ezekial James McBeth

173 F.3d 646 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Mar 29, 1999

We reject this challenge, but we must first establish our jurisdiction to hear the case. When a district court’s denial of a claim of qualified immunity turns upon an issue of law, it is an appealable “final decision.” … In determining whether the district court should have granted summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity, we must consider whether Kuehl has alleged a violation of a clearly-established constitutional right and whether

Davis v. Holly

835 F.2d 1175 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Dec 30, 1987

Davis to have been clearly established in this jurisdiction. … Fitzgerald teaches that if a qualified-immunity defense is to be defeated on the ground that the constitutional violation was obvious, the constitutional rights in question must have been “clearly established” and must have

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.

Nebraska Beef, Ltd. v. Greening

398 F.3d 1080 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Feb 28, 2005

, the issue whether the federal right allegedly infringed was ‘clearly’ established.” 516 U.S. 299, 313 (1996) (internal citations and quotations omitted) (original emphasis). … We stated in Buchholz, citing Drake, that “[i]f defendants prevail on [establishing that Buchholz has no cause of action], ‘it follows a fortiori’ they are entitled to qualified immunity.” Id. at 865.

Johnson v. Bay Area Rapid Transit District

724 F.3d 1159 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jul 30, 2013

The reasonable officer avoids committing acts that have been clearly established as unconstitutional—for example, handcuffing a prisoner to a fence for a long period of time—as well as other, similar acts, like handcuffing … We note that the specific quantum of force involved in using a Taser was not clearly established at the time that Pirone merely threatened its use, see Bryan v.

LSO, Ltd. v. Stroh

205 F.3d 1146 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Mar 6, 2000

Once the defense of qualified immunity is raised by the defendant, the plaintiff bears the burden of showing that the rights allegedly violated were “clearly established.” See Shoshone-Bannock Tribes v. … Thus, LSO’s right was “clearly established.” 3.

Michael Sheets v. Ozean Moore

97 F.3d 164 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Oct 4, 1996

The court also refused to grant qualified immunity, concluding that at the time Moore rejected plaintiffs mail, plaintiffs right to receive such mail was clearly established. … A state official is entitled to qualified immunity to the extent that his conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v.

Cullinan v. Abramson

128 F.3d 301 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Dec 18, 1997

The grounds on which the defendants relied included both absolute immunity and qualified immunity. … Plaintiffs would be able to convert the rule of qualified immunity that our cases plainly establish into a rule of virtually unqualified liability simply by alleging violation of extremely abstract rights."

Nathan Rinne v. Camden County

65 F.4th 378 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Apr 13, 2023

Hasty moved to dismiss on the basis of qualified immunity. … A public official enjoys qualified immunity from suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 unless a plaintiff shows that the official’s alleged conduct violated one of the plaintiff’s clearly established constitutional rights.

Leiser v. Moore

903 F.3d 1137 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Sep 6, 2018

The defense of qualified immunity “shields public officials from damages actions unless their conduct was unreasonable in light of clearly established law.” … We can resolve this appeal by considering only the clearly-established prong of the qualified- immunity defense. See Bowling v.

D'Aguanno v. Gallagher

50 F.3d 877 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Mar 29, 1995

Therefore, to overcome defendants’ qualified immunity defense, plaintiffs must establish that defendants’ conduct violated “‘clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known … To overcome the qualified immunity defense, citing precedent which establishes a general right will not do.

Billingsley v. St. Louis County

70 F.3d 61 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Nov 14, 1995

It held that government officials are generally immune from suit in performing discretionary duties if “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would … Accordingly, we cannot say that defendants should have known they were violating a clearly established right.

Estate of Young v. Martin

70 F. App'x 256 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 26, 2003

of clearly established law.” … Thus, it is taught that the “threshold inquiry a court must undertake in a qualified immunity analysis is whether [the] plaintiffs allegations, if true, establish a constitutional violation.” 1 Hope v.

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

Schroeder v. Kaplan

60 F.3d 834 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jul 7, 1995

Sec. 1291 , and we affirm. 3 Government officials are entitled to qualified immunity where the right which the officials have allegedly violated was not clearly established at the time the conduct occurred such that a reasonable … the district court properly granted defendants qualified immunity on this claim.

Porter v. Ascension Parish School Board

393 F.3d 608 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Dec 10, 2004

challenged state action was unconstitutional.”13 Even if we find that the right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation, however, a defendant will still be entitled to qualified immunity if … Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 640 (1987); Barrow, 332 F.3d at 846 (second question in qualified immunity analysis is whether the “constitutional right was clearly established when the violation supposedly occured”). 13

Myers v. Oklahoma County Board of County Commissioners

80 F.3d 421 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Apr 1, 1996

In their summary judgment motions, defendants asserted their defense of qualified immunity. … right that was allegedly violated was “clearly established.”

Johnson v. District of Columbia

528 F.3d 969 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jun 20, 2008

and  7 the qualified immunity defense. … what is clearly established law.

Pittman v. Cuyahoga County Department of Children & Family Services

640 F.3d 716 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · May 20, 2011

The doctrine of qualified immunity protects “government officials performing discretionary functions . . . from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … She therefore is entitled to qualified immunity. A.