Case law

Linda K. Wood v. Steven C. Ostrander Neil Maloney

879 F.2d 583 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jun 27, 1989

Qualified, Immunity State officials cannot be held liable for damages under section 1983 unless their conduct violates a clearly established constitutional right. Davis v. … away clearly established law.

Charles Kaminski v. Brad Coulter

865 F.3d 339 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 25, 2017

were not “clearly established” at the time that the violation occurred. … With respect to Clinton’s qualified-immunity defense, the district court held that the plaintiffs’ constitutional rights “were clearly established” and that thus qualified immunity was unavailable.

Anilao v. Spota

27 F.4th 855 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Mar 9, 2022

"Qualified immunity protects a public official from liability for conduct that 'does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.'" … Transit Auth., 124 F.3d 123, 130 (2d Cir. 1997) (denying qualified immunity to police officers where a reasonable jury could find they "violated the plaintiffs' clearly established constitutional rights by conspiring to

Rodgers v. Hawley

14 F. App'x 403 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 22, 2001

Thus, assuming Kedzierzawski and Kirkwood violated Irvin’s right to be free from retaliation for filing grievances, the question for purposes of qualified immunity is whether this violation involved a “clearly established … Because they did not violate constitutional rights that were clearly established at the time of their actions, Kedzierzawski and Kirkwood are entitled to qualified immunity on Irvin’s retaliation claim. 6 IV For the reasons

Zuchel v. Spinharney

890 F.2d 273 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Nov 27, 1989

Runner, 854 F.2d 374 (10th Cir.1988): 8 Qualified immunity is an affirmative defense that protects government officials from personal liability unless their actions violate clearly established law of which a reasonable person … Id. 12 Officer Spinharney concedes that Zuchel's right to be free from excessive force is a clearly established right. Opening Brief of Appellant at 24.

Ernest Onderik v. Joe P. Morgan

897 F.2d 204 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Oct 10, 1989

Because the defendants did not violate clearly established federal law or knowingly anticipate that their conduct would give rise to constitutional claims, defendants retain the protections of qualified immunity. … To lose the protections of qualified immunity, the federal officials must have violated clearly established law. See Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 528 , 105 S.Ct. 2806, 2816 , 86 L.Ed.2d 411 (1985).

Boyd v. Knox

47 F.3d 966 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Feb 15, 1995

The defendants then appealed the issue of qualified immunity. II. DISCUSSION An order denying summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity is immediately appealable. Henderson v. … Second, we must determine whether that right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation. Id.

Cronn v. Buffington

150 F.3d 538 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Aug 27, 1998

The district court granted qualified immunity to all Defendants. … Because there was no “clearly established” right to be free from seizure under such a warrant, we affirm the district court’s judgment granting summary judgment to the defendants based on the defense of qualified immunity

Kathryn M. Zorzi v. County of Putnam, Philip H. Hansen, Former Sheriff of Putnam County, Donald Maggi, Sheriff of Putnam County

30 F.3d 885 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Aug 26, 1994

“The defense of qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … Rather, he claims that he is entitled to qualified immunity because count two does not set forth a substantive due process violation, or at least not one that is clearly established.

Blouin v. Spitzer

356 F.3d 348 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Feb 2, 2004

The court did, however, determine that they were entitled to qualified immunity, because "plaintiff has failed to allege a violation of a clearly established right. … Qualified Immunity 34 We now consider qualified immunity, which shields a government official acting in an official capacity from suit for damages under § 1983 unless the official "violated clearly established rights of which

Sims v. Metropolitan Dade County

972 F.2d 1230 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Sep 18, 1992

actions violated clearly established rights. … Assuming the facts as Sims alleged them for the purposes of qualified immunity, the county officials' actions violated clearly established law and they are not entitled to qualified immunity. * Honorable Bailey Brown, Senior

Moya v. Schollenbarger

465 F.3d 444 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Sep 26, 2006

As to the first prong of qualified immunity — whether Defendants violated a “clearly established statutory or constitutional right[],” Harlow v. … First Amendment rights As to the first prong of a qualified immunity analysis, M r. M oya’s allegations clearly implicate First Amendment rights.

Krish Singh v. City of Phoenix

124 F.4th 746 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Dec 26, 2024

DISCUSSION “Qualified immunity shields government officials from civil damages liability unless the official violated a statutory or constitutional right that was clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct … Qualified Immunity The district court held, and we agree, that Plaintiff has established a plausible, even though not conclusive, constitutional violation at step one of the qualified-immunity analysis.

Williams v. Ballard

466 F.3d 330 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Sep 28, 2006

I The district court concluded that qualified immunity shielded defendants, precluding damages, because Williams’s right to procedural due process was not a “clearly established statutory or constitutional … This makes sense, given the different goals of AEDPA and qualified immunity.

Ealum v. Schirard

46 F. App'x 587 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jul 30, 2002

At the summary judgment stage, if the record, taken in the light most favorable to plaintiff, clearly demonstrates the violation of a clearly established right, qualified immunity is not available. … . § 242 , like “clearly established” requirement in qualified immunity analysis, is not dependent upon “fundamentally similar” prior case law).

Wadith Nader v. City of Papillion

917 F.3d 1055 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Mar 8, 2019

On that claim, the district court found: (1) Svajgl and Iversen were entitled to qualified immunity; (2) Hessig was entitled to either absolute immunity or qualified immunity; (3) Lyons and Polikov were entitled to qualified … “An official is entitled to qualified immunity unless (1) the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, establishes a violation of a constitutional or statutory right, and (2) the right was clearly established

Brown v. Gilmore

278 F.3d 362 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Jan 23, 2002

Next, assuming that the violation of the right is established, courts must consider whether the right was clearly established at the time such that it would be clear to an objectively reasonable officer that his conduct violated … Because, "[i]f no constitutional right would have been violated were the allegations established, there is no necessity for further inquires concerning qualified immunity."

Jenkins v. Talladega City Board Of Education

95 F.3d 1036 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Oct 16, 1996

Thus, the basic principles of qualified immunity doctrine remain unchanged. 22 The confusion over qualified immunity is exemplified by defendants' apparent assumption that relevant law can be "clearly established" only when … establish the law in this case for qualified immunity purposes.

Danley v. Allen

540 F.3d 1298 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 22, 2008

To 8 overcome the defense of qualified immunity, a plaintiff must show a constitutional or statutory violation and also that the right violated was clearly established at the … Ct. at 1085. 18  Having established a constitutional violation, the next step in the qualified immunity analysis usually is to determine whether the right was clearly

Terrell v. Allgrunn

114 F.4th 428 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Aug 27, 2024

To defeat qualified immunity, the plaintiff must show that the official’s conduct was objectively unreasonable in light of a clearly established rule of law. … When evaluating whether [Allgrunn] violated clearly es- tablished law for purposes of our qualified immunity analysis, we consider whether the law was clearly established at the time of the defendant