Case law

Dean v. Munch

4 F. App'x 380 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Feb 14, 2001

To be considered “clearly established” for the purposes of qualified immunity analysis, “[t]he contours of the right must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that … A claim of immunity under the Idaho Tort Claims Act is not an immunity from suit, as qualified and absolute immunity are.

Tracy Ray Vaughan, and Mark Koch, Donald Nelson, and Mark Osborne v. James Ricketts

950 F.2d 1464 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Dec 13, 1991

Qualified immunity is available to government officials if they could reasonably have thought that their actions were lawful in light of the clearly established law and the information they possessed. Anderson v. … By 1984, it was clearly established that the Fourth Amendment requires that rectal *1469 searches in prisons be conducted with reasonable cause and in a reasonable manner. Bell v.

James Durham v. Robert Jones

737 F.3d 291 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Dec 10, 2013

Jones contends that he is entitled to qualified immunity, which shields government officials “who commit constitutional violations but who, in light of clearly established law, could reasonably believe … “To prevail under qualified immunity, [Jones] has to show either that there was no constitutional violation or that the right violated was not clearly established.” Gregg v.

Holeman v. City of New London

425 F.3d 184 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Sep 30, 2005

Our review at this juncture is limited, however, to "circumstances where the qualified immunity defense may be established as a matter of law." Cartier v. Lussier, 955 F.2d 841, 844 (2d Cir.1992). … III 11 Qualified immunity "shields police officers acting in their official capacity from suits for damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 , unless their actions violate clearly-established rights of which an objectively reasonable

Figueroa-Rodriguez v. Lopez-Rivera

878 F.2d 1478 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Apr 25, 1989

Harlow, supra (government officials enjoy “qualified immunity” where the law does not “clearly” forbid their actions). … In Mendez-Palou, 813 F.2d at 1259 , this circuit said that the question in a “qualified immunity” case, such as this one, is “whether [at the time of dismissal] it was clearly established that employees in the particular

Turning Point USA at Arkansas v. Ron Rhodes

973 F.3d 868 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Aug 31, 2020

The district court also rejected Hoggard’s § 1983 due-process and First-Amendment damages claims, finding that the defendants were entitled to qualified immunity because they had not violated a clearly established right.4 … “Qualified immunity shields public officials from liability for civil damages if their conduct did not ‘violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’”

William Bell-Bey v. Beverly Williams

87 F.3d 832 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 1, 1996

The Donta court held, “If the law which the defendant is alleged to have violated is clearly established, then the qualified immunity defense should fail and discovery should proceed. … If the law is not clearly established, the defendant is immune.” Id. (citation omitted).

Dakshesh Parikh v. Citizens Medical Center

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Aug 11, 2014

Appellants argue that the alleged violations of the AKS and Stark Law were not clearly established at the time of the instant offenses. … This clearly established statutory right is precisely what Relators alleged Appellants to have violated.

Gooden v. Howard County Maryland

917 F.2d 1355 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Nov 9, 1990

A The defense of qualified immunity generally protects “government officials performing discretionary functions ... from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … was no clearly established law guiding their conduct.

Harris Ex Rel. the Estate of Jkhary Craft v. Lasseigne

602 F. App'x 218 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Feb 4, 2015

Lasseigne is entitled to qualified immunity if the court determines that his actions in shooting Craft “did not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. … It was clearly established at the time of the shooting that an officer violates the Fourth Amendment if he shoots a suspect without “probable cause to believe that the No. 14-1033 Harris v.

Jodie Smook v. Minnehaha County

457 F.3d 806 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Aug 9, 2006

a violation of clearly established constitutional law. … The court further held that Banbury and Cheever were not entitled to qualified immunity because it was “clearly established for several years” prior to the time of the alleged violations that the Fourth Amendment prohibited

Frank Zavaro v. Thomas A. Coughlin, Iii, C.R. Homrighouse

970 F.2d 1148 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jul 31, 1992

We have previously articulated the standard for establishing a defense of qualified immunity. … Coughlin, 774 F.Supp. 189, 199-200 (S.D.N.Y.1991) (holding that a hearing officer is not entitled to qualified immunity for *1154 violating inmate’s clearly established right to an independent assessment of informants’ reliability

Pearlie Gambrel v. Knox Cnty., Ky.

25 F.4th 391 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Feb 8, 2022

Even so, our caselaw did not clearly establish that the Officers acted unconstitutionally when using this force. Since we may address the two-part qualified-immunity test in either order, see Pearson v. … This conclusion leads to the second qualified-immunity question: Even under Gambrel’s version of events, would Ashurst’s shooting violate clearly established law?

Lawrence v. United States

340 F.3d 952 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Aug 21, 2003

Qualified Immunity 8 A district court's decision to grant summary judgment on the grounds of qualified immunity is reviewed de novo. Case v. Kitsap County Sheriff's Dep't, 249 F.3d 921 , 925 (9th Cir.2001). … If the right is not clearly established, the defendant is entitled to qualified immunity. Id.

The Presbyterian Church (u.s.a.) v. The United States of America

870 F.2d 518 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Apr 13, 1989

IV QUALIFIED IMMUNITY The district court held below that the individual INS agents named as defen *527 dants are entitled to qualified immunity. We agree. … Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, federal officials are immune from liability for damages “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person

Maxcie Thomas v. Houston Talley

Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · May 25, 2001

Qualified immunity "shield[s] [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 … immunity ... typically, the issue whether the federal right allegedly infringed was 'clearly established' " (emphasis in original).

Harhay v. Town of Ellington Board of Education

323 F.3d 206 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Mar 21, 2003

Public officials enjoy qualified immunity from suit for damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for acts undertaken in their official capacity, unless their conduct violates clearly established constitutional rights of which an objectively … Defendants may benefit from qualified immunity if plaintiff is unable to establish any of these three *212 steps.

Moore v. Lightfoot

286 F. App'x 844 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jun 27, 2008

Under the second prong of the qualified immunity test, however, we find that Guyton’s actions were objectively reasonable in light of clearly established law. Guyton took measures to protect Moore from danger. … Guyton is, therefore, entitled to qualified immunity. B.

Gene Bartholomew v. Commonwealth Of Pa

221 F.3d 425 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Aug 7, 2000

established at the time those warrants were executed. 15 We note in this connection that, for purposes of the qualified immunity analysis, the "clearly established constitutional right" should be set forth with specificity … Thus, while it was "clearly established" that warrants must be particular, the narrower and more appropriate question, i.e. whether it was clearly established that one has a constitutional right to be free from a search pursuant

Brian Thomas Hoyland v. Shawn McMenomy

869 F.3d 644 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Aug 28, 2017

established law.” … ... right; and (2) whether that right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation.”