Case law

Daniel F. Sullivan v. Frederick R. Carrick

888 F.2d 1 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Dec 12, 1989

This court must look to the “ ‘objective reasonableness of [the defendant’s] conduct, as measured by reference to clearly established law,’ to determine whether the doctrine of qualified immunity applies.” Unwin v. … The qualifying test for qualified immunity is in two parts: whether (1) Sullivan’s constitutional rights were violated; and (2) whether those rights were clearly established such that Carrick would have known that his conduct

Bryson v. Gonzales

534 F.3d 1282 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jul 28, 2008

defendants were entitled to qualified immunity. … The only issues that properly belong in an interlocutory appeal for qualified immunity are the existence of a constitutional violation and whether it was clearly established at the time of the defendant’s conduct.

Bosarge v. Mississippi Bureau of Narcotics

796 F.3d 435 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jul 15, 2015

To overcome the qualified immunity defense, Bosarge must plead that the agents violated a clearly established statutory or constitutional right of which a reasonable person would have known. See Pearson v. … The agents are entitled to qualified immunity, and we need not decide their claim of absolute immunity under Rehberg.

Roger Trent v. Steven Wade

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jan 9, 2015

The doctrine of qualified immunity “insulate[s]” state officials from liability to the extent that the officials’ actions do not violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights.” … ‘clearly established’ at the time of the challenged conduct.”

Hicks v. City Of Watonga

942 F.2d 737 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Aug 19, 1991

immunity. 31 Clearly, the threat to fire Mr. … Diffey's lone vote. 72 The appellants are entitled to qualified immunity on the property interest claim unless they violated Mr. Hicks' clearly established right. Harlow, 457 U.S. at 818 , 102 S.Ct. at 2738 .

Atkins v. Township of Flint

94 F. App'x 342 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 9, 2004

Atkins clearly established constitutional right not to be arrested without probable cause and not to be subjected to excessive force. … Atkins could maintain a § 1983 action based on a violation of his clearly established right to be free from an arrest without a probable cause.

Dale E. Kraus and Rosetta M. Kraus, Husband and Wife Cindy D. Kraus, Individually and Todd W. Montgomery, Individually v. County of Pierce

793 F.2d 1105 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Sep 17, 1986

The Supreme Court has noted, however, that qualified immunity “is an immunity from suit rather than a mere defense to liability____” Mitchell v. … According to the test for qualified immunity established by the Supreme Court, the deputies in this case are immune from liability (and trial) if “their conduct [did] not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional

Doe v. Marsh

105 F.3d 106 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jan 22, 1997

“Even where the plaintiffs federal rights and the scope of the official’s permissible conduct are clearly established, the qualified immunity defense protects a government actor if it was ‘objectively reasonable’ for him … ‘clearly established’ at the. time [the action] was taken.”)

Dudley v. Angel

209 F.3d 460 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Apr 25, 2000

Therefore, Dudley must overcome the defendants’ claims of qualified immunity, by first showing a violation of clearly established federal rights. Sorenson v. … The first step of the qualified immunity analysis is subdivided into three questions: (1) whether a constitutional violation is alleged; (2) whether the law regarding the alleged violation was clearly established at the

Anderson v. Recore

446 F.3d 324 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · May 4, 2006

II 33 "[P]ublic officials . . . are protected by qualified immunity from civil liability for actions taken in their official capacity, if those actions were objectively reasonable in light of clearly established rules then … Defendants are therefore entitled to qualified immunity.

Howard Lockridge v. Bd. of Trustees etc.

315 F.3d 1005 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jan 14, 2003

Jones’s request for qualified immunity. All of the defendants appeal. Mr. … Jones was not entitled to qualified immunity. On appeal, Dr. Jones contends that he is entitled to qualified immunity because Mr.

William Hurt v. Matthew Wise

880 F.3d 831 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jan 23, 2018

of  clearly  established  law.  … Even if, in hindsight, it appears that probable cause  was lacking, qualified immunity is still available if the arrest‐ ing officers “reasonabl[y] … could have believed the arrest to  be  lawful,  in  light  of  clearly 

Pabon v. Wright

459 F.3d 241 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Aug 3, 2006

Because this right was not clearly established in this circuit when Pabon was diagnosed with and treated for Hepatitis C, we affirm the district court’s grant of summary judgment to all Defendants on qualified-immunity grounds … According to this second inquiry, a qualified-immunity defense will be successful either when the defendants’ actions did not violate clearly established law or when it was objectively reasonable for the defendants to believe

Lee v. Arapahoe County

197 F.3d 1291 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Dec 1, 1999

We affirm the district court’s denial of qualified immunity to Mr. … The final step in reviewing the district court’s denial of qualified immunity to Mr. Gibbs is to determine whether the right violated was clearly established at the time of Mr. Lee’s termination. Siegert v.

Pollnow v. Glennon

757 F.2d 496 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Mar 12, 1985

violates “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … The district court in that case concluded that, although the right to such a hearing under the due process clause had not been clearly established at the time of the termination, the failure to follow established state regulations

Jeffrey Davis v. Bim Lowers

132 F. App'x 302 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · May 23, 2005

Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c).2 Qualified immunity protects from liability government officials sued in their individual capacities if their conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights … The burden then shifts to Davis to show that qualified immunity is not appropriate. The threshold inquiry is whether Davis’s allegations, if true, establish a constitutional violation. Id.

Anderson v. Recore

446 F.3d 324 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · May 4, 2006

II “[Pjublic officials ... are protected by qualified immunity from civil liability for actions taken in their official capacity, if those actions were objectively reasonable in light of clearly established rules then extant … Defendants are therefore entitled to qualified immunity.

Losch v. Borough of Parkesburg

736 F.2d 903 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jun 14, 1984

Qualified immunity protects a defendant who failed to observe a right or a legal standard that was not clearly established when the defendant acted. Thus, the Court held in Procunier v. … On the other hand, as the Harlow Court concluded, “[i]f the law was clearly established, the immunity defense ordinarily should fail,” unless the defendant “claims extraordinary circumstances and can prove that he neither

Rhodes v. Robinson

408 F.3d 559 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Aug 19, 2004

Rowland, 65 F.3d 802 , 806 & n. 4 (9th Cir.1995) (“[T]he prohibition against retaliatory punishment is ‘clearly established law’ in the Ninth Circuit, for qualified immunity purposes. … must first reiterate our firm recognition that “the prohibition against retaliatory punishment is ‘clearly established law’ in the Ninth Circuit, for qualified immunity purposes.”

Kitt v. Bailey

676 F. App'x 350 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Feb 14, 2017

Because McCreary invoked the defense of qualified immunity, Kitt must also negate that defense by pleading facts to show a violation of a right that was clearly established at the time of the incident and that, in light of … that clearly established law, the defendant’s conduct was objectively unreasonable.