Case law

Winfield v. G.L. Bass

106 F.3d 525 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Jan 31, 1997

Government officials performing discretionary functions are entitled to qualified immunity from liability for civil damages to the extent that “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … No clearly established law having been violated, the prison officials were entitled to qualified immunity. 5 IV.

Burge v. Parish of St. Tammany

187 F.3d 452 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Aug 25, 1999

not violate any clearly established constitutional guarantees; (4) the Sheriff defendants were entitled to discretionary function immunity under La. … Orders denying qualified immunity are based on an issue of law when: (1) they decide whether the legal right allegedly violated by the official was clearly established at the time of the challenged action; or (2) in cases

John Burns v. Brad Cole

18 F.4th 1003 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Nov 29, 2021

-4-  “The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … “Qualified immunity analysis requires a two-step inquiry: (1) whether the facts shown by the plaintiff make out a violation of a constitutional or statutory right, and (2) whether that right 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.

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

Brian Grady v. El Paso Community College, Linda Luehrs

979 F.2d 1111 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Dec 30, 1992

An official is entitled to qualified immunity unless her conduct violated clearly established federal rights. Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 , 102 S.Ct. 2727, 2738 , 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982). … The First Amendment protections of state employees who speak on matters of public concern are clearly established. See e.g. Mt. Healthy City School Dist. Bd. of Educ. v.

Monteria Najuda Robinson v. William Sauls

46 F.4th 1332 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 30, 2022

To receive qualified immunity, an official “must establish that he or she acted within the scope of discretionary authority when the allegedly wrongful acts occurred.” Hardigree v. … Robinson’s clearly established rights. A right is clearly established when it is “suffi- ciently clear that every reasonable official would have understood that what he is doing violates that right.” Mullenix v.

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.

Buchanan v. Metz

647 F. App'x 659 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · May 11, 2016

’s conduct (1) violated a statutory or constitutional right, which (2) is clearly established such that a reasonable officer would have known that the officer’s conduct violated that right. … Furthermore, any role that Metz may have had in advising Motley would be protected under qualified immunity, since we found that it is not clearly established that no reasonable officer would believe that a crime was being

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

Anthony Zimmerman v. Jeffrey Doran

Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Nov 24, 2015

Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, officials are shielded from civil liability “‘insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established  statutory  or  constitutional  rights  of  which  a reasonable person  … We have held that “‘[c]onsulting a prosecutor may not give an officer absolute immunity from being sued for false arrest,  but  it  goes  far  to  establish  qualified  immunity.

Atkinson v. Taylor

316 F.3d 257 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jan 21, 2003

Atkinson has fulfilled Saucier 's first prong for denying qualified immunity by alleging a violation of a clearly established constitutional right. … The majority misconstrues the Supreme Court's Eighth Amendment jurisprudence, and, a fortiori, wrongly deems its outcome "clearly established" for purposes of qualified immunity.

Patricia Scott v. Clay County, Tennessee Chinn Anderson Billy Pierce Michael Thompson

205 F.3d 867 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Mar 1, 2000

as their conduct does not violate clearly established [federal] statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. … The procedure for evaluating claims of qualified immunity is tripartite: First, we determine whether a constitutional violation has occurred; second, we determine whether the right that was violated was a clearly established

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.

Cygnar v. City of Chicago

865 F.2d 827 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jan 4, 1989

MATHIS’S QUALIFIED IMMUNITY (RACE DISCRIMINATION) Mathis finally contends that he is immune from damages under the doctrine of qualified “good faith” immunity set forth in Harlow v. … Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, government officials performing discretionary functions are shielded from liability for civil damages in an action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 unless their conduct violated “clearly

Ronald Unwin v. Police Officer Robert Campbell, State Trooper Mark Furlone and State Trooper John Ellsworth, Ronald Unwin v. Police Officer Robert Campbell

863 F.2d 124 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Dec 9, 1988

clearly established law and thus were not qualifiedly immune. … A court must look to the "objective reasonableness of an official's conduct, as measured by reference to clearly established law," to determine whether the doctrine of qualified immunity applies.

Laquarius Gray v. Antonio Bostic

458 F.3d 1295 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 7, 2006

Qualified Immunity Principles “Qualified immunity offers a complete protection for government officials sued in their individual capacities if their conduct ‘does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … The Supreme Court has established a two-part test to evaluate whether an official is entitled to qualified immunity.

Jose Padilla v. John Yoo

678 F.3d 748 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · May 2, 2012

YOO tiffs’ RFRA claims on the basis of qualified immunity, hold- ing that RFRA’s application “to the military detention setting” was not clearly established at the time of the alleged viola- tions. Id. at 560. … YOO Yoo is entitled to qualified immunity, however, because it was not clearly established in 2001-03 that the treatment to which Padilla says he was subjected amounted to torture.

Federman v. County of Kern

61 F. App'x 438 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Apr 15, 2003

If a constitutional right would have been violated were a plaintiffs allegations established, the next step is to ask whether the right was clearly established in light of the context of the case. Id. … Next, the law on excessive force was clearly established by April 21, 1998, the day Federman was shot and killed.