Case law

Giacalone v. Abrams

850 F.2d 79 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Aug 17, 1988

Finally, the court denied the defendants' motion to dismiss on grounds of qualified immunity, holding that the First Amendment implications of their conduct were clearly established. 3 The defendants bring this interlocutory … qualified immunity.

Randy Cole v. Michael Hunter

935 F.3d 444 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Aug 20, 2019

Garner does not formulate “clearly established law” with the degree of specificity required by the Supreme Court’s decisions on qualified immunity. … Ct. at 1776 (“Qualified immunity is no immunity at all if ‘clearly established’ law can simply be defined as the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures.”); Wilson v.

Ellen Keates v. Michael Koile

883 F.3d 1228 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Mar 6, 2018

But on the other hand, defendants are entitled to qualified immunity so long as “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … KOILE Turning to the second prong of the qualified immunity inquiry, “whether the right was clearly established,” Saucier, 533 U.S. at 201, we must determine whether it was so clear that Koile’s actions violated Keates

Gooden v. Howard County, Maryland

954 F.2d 960 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Jan 23, 1992

C. 28 Gooden further argues that the defendants did not act reasonably in light of clearly established law. … Gooden failed to violate a clearly established constitutional right.

Melodi Navab-Safavi v. Broadcasting Board of Govenors

637 F.3d 311 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Mar 1, 2011

Legal Background Appellant’s motion for dismissal is rooted in the well- established doctrine of qualified immunity. … The Board asserts its qualified immunity, but we are unable to determine without an evidentiary record whether any act it committed in defense of those functions constituted a violation of clearly established rights, or even

Jay T. Brown v. Deputy Constable John Glossip

878 F.2d 871 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Aug 4, 1989

At the time Brown filed his complaint, the law of our Circuit pertaining to the use of excessive force by police officers was clearly established. Shillingford v. … In overcoming the qualified immunity defense, it is not enough for the plaintiff to allege that the government official violated a clearly established right in the generalized sense for that “would ... convert the rule of

Kenneth H. Swipies v. Frank Kofka

Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Nov 3, 2003

An officer is entitled to qualified immunity unless his conduct violated clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. See Harlow v. … established.

Riverdale Mills Corp. v. Pimpare

392 F.3d 55 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Dec 22, 2004

of a constitutional right; second whether the constitutional right allegedly violated was clearly established; and third whether the defendants nonetheless deserve qualified immunity because their … Layne, 526 U.S. 603, 614-15 (1999) ("It could plausibly be asserted that any violation of the Fourth Amendment is 'clearly established,' since it is clearly established that the protections of the Fourth Amendment apply

Travers v. Jones

323 F.3d 1294 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Mar 11, 2003

The law is clearly established that an employer may not demote or discharge a public employee for engaging in protected speech. See Rankin v. … CEO Jones and Chief Wilder are entitled to qualified immunity. REVERSED.

Trinidad Roure v. Rafael Hernandez Colon, Etc.

824 F.2d 139 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Jul 24, 1987

The question before us on this interlocutory appeal is whether “the incorrectness of [defendants’] conduct was clearly established,” see DeAbadia v. … Defendants’ position that the appointments were void, even if correct as a matter of Puerto Rico law, does not establish that defendants are entitled to qualified immunity with respect to plaintiffs’ First Amendment claims

James Williams v. Brian Maurer

9 F.4th 416 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 17, 2021

Clearly Established Right At the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis, Plaintiffs bear the burden of showing that Defendants’ unconstitutional conduct violated clearly established law. … clearly established.

Williams v. Hansen

326 F.3d 569 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Apr 22, 2003

action is a violation) violates a clearly established right. … 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.

Clark v. Wilson

625 F.3d 686 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Nov 22, 2010

. § 1291, we REVERSE the denial of qualified immunity because Clark did not have a clearly established right in 2007 to a predeprivation hearing. I. … Qualified Immunity “The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights

Medina v. Cram

252 F.3d 1124 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jun 12, 2001

An order denying summary judgment based on qualified immunity necessarily involves a legal determination that certain alleged actions violate clearly established law. … officer violated a clearly established right.

Zachary Church v. Bob Anderson

898 F.3d 830 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Aug 3, 2018

We review de novo a decision granting summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity. Burton v. St. Louis Bd. of Police Comm’rs, 731 F.3d 784, 791 (8th Cir. 2013). … clearly established at the time of the violation.

Mayfield v. Bethards

826 F.3d 1252 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jun 20, 2016

Whether a plaintiff has sufficiently “alleged a violation of his clearly established constitutional rights to overcome [the defendant’s] defense of qualified immunity is an issue of law reviewable on interlocutory appeal … Qualified immunity protects government officials from suit for civil damages if their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights. Thomas v.

Sockwell v. Phelps

20 F.3d 187 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · May 10, 1994

established in the opinions rendered by Judge Johnson in Washington v. … We further hold that Phelps and Blackburn are not protected under qualified immunity, due to their knowing and intentional participation in a general policy of racial segregation 5 The Tenth Circuit specifically

Aldaba v. Marshall County

777 F.3d 1148 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Feb 4, 2015

Qualified Immunity: General Policies “The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … In its sole reference to the second prong of qualified immunity—clearly established law—the district court simply noted that “[t]he reasonableness standard is clearly established for the purposes of a section 1983 action

Gerald R. Wollin v. Bruce Gondert, Deputy Sheriff, Joseph Seidel, Deputy Sheriff and Jefferson County, Wisconsin

192 F.3d 616 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Sep 2, 1999

“Thus ... a qualified immunity analysis entails a purely objective inquiry to determine whether at the time of the alleged illegal act, the right asserted by the plaintiff was clearly established in the particular factual … Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity protects government officials from liability for civil damages “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”

Jeffrey Tokar v. Bill Armontrout Robert Drennen Myrna E. Trickey

97 F.3d 1078 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Oct 8, 1996

After the stay was lifted, in 1993 appellees filed a motion for summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds, asserting that they had not violated any clearly established right by segregating Tokar on the basis of his HIV-positive … The district court held that appellees were entitled to qualified immunity on this issue, concluding that during the times in 1989 and 1991 that Tokar was segregated in Unit Six he had no clearly established constitutional