Case law

Williams v. Mehra

135 F.3d 1105 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Feb 5, 1998

right was ‘clearly established.’ … Consequently, this Court does not evaluate Defendants' qualified immunity defense under the objective test of whether a reasonable official would have known that his acts or omissions violated a clearly established right.

White v. Pierce County

797 F.2d 812 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Aug 20, 1986

Qualified Immunity 13 Government officials performing discretionary functions are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights … The rights which plaintiffs assert in this case are clearly established.

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.

Roska v. Sneddon

437 F.3d 964 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Feb 9, 2006

To overcome a qualified immunity defense, a plaintiff must first establish a violation of a constitutional or statutory right and then show that the right was clearly established. Garramone v. … Usually, if the law is clearly established at the time of defendant’s conduct, a qualified immunity defense will fail. Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818-19 , 102 S.Ct. 2727 , 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982).

Victor Santiago v. Daniel Blair

707 F.3d 984 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Feb 27, 2013

was clearly established at the time of the defendant’s alleged misconduct. … “Under the rule established in Pearson, we have the discretion to decide ‘which of the two prongs of the qualified immunity analysis should be addressed first in light of the circumstances in the particular case at hand.’

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

Robert Wilkerson v. Richard Stalder

774 F.3d 845 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Dec 17, 2014

To be “clearly established” for purposes of qualified immunity, “[t]he contours of the right must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that right.” Anderson v. … Adequacy of Process We hold that Woodfox has a clearly established liberty interest.

R. Scott Sexton v. Ronald Martin

210 F.3d 905 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Apr 19, 2000

“This court has . . . taken a broad view of what constitutes ‘clearly established law’ for the purposes of a qualified immunity inquiry. . . ” Boswell v. … In Martin’s supplementary motion for summary judgment, Martin argues in the qualified immunity portion of this brief that he “is entitled to qualified immunity because it was not clearly established that he could be guilty

Beverly Thompson v. David E. Wagner and Keith Gardner

319 F.3d 931 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Mar 14, 2003

Qualified immunity shields police officers 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 known.” … light of the facts and circumstances within the officers’ knowledge and clearly established law, Mrs.

Estate of Daniel Hernandez v. City of Los Angeles

96 F.4th 1209 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Mar 21, 2024

CITY OF LOS ANGELES qualified immunity because McBride did not violate clearly established law. … Because McBride did not violate clearly established law in firing her third volley of shots, we conclude that she is entitled to qualified immunity.

United States of America and John Dezelar v. David L. Holmes, as Bishop and Director of the Miletus Church, Inc.

614 F.2d 985 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Mar 31, 1980

There can be no quibbling with the fact that a valid purpose was established. … That finding is not clearly erroneous.

Melodi Navab-Safavi v. Broadcasting Board of Govenors

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

Clubside, Inc. v. Valentin

468 F.3d 144 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Oct 25, 2006

that issues of fact remained with respect to the defense of qualified immunity. … before deciding whether the right was clearly established.”

Paul Donald Davis v. Paul Waller

44 F.4th 1305 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 12, 2022

To overcome the defense of qualified immunity, the plaintiff must show first, that the defend- ant violated a constitutional right and, second, that the right was “clearly established.” Corbitt v. … But I concur in Part II.E’s conclu- sion that Waller did not violate any clearly established law and therefore was entitled to qualified immunity. The majority opinion accurately recounts the facts of the case.

Bollinger v. Oregon State Board of Parole & Post-Prison Supervision

86 F. App'x 259 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Dec 22, 2003

We review de novo both a district court’s decision on qualified immunity, and its determination of whether a plaintiffs rights were clearly established at the time of the alleged violation. Elder v. … We proceed to whether Bollinger’s rights were clearly established because the Board has conceded for purposes of its motion to dismiss that Bollinger has alleged a violation of his constitutional rights. See Saucier v.

Wood v. Sunn

865 F.2d 982 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jul 27, 1988

The Supreme Court decided an entirely different issue in this case: precisely what must be “clearly established” for a law enforcement officer to be entitled to summary judgment on the issue of qualified immunity in the context … of a warrant-less search. 4 The Supreme Court held that qualified immunity is available if a reasonable police officer could have believed that the search was justified, in light of clearly established law and the information

William Sours v. Chad Karr

943 F.3d 1169 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Dec 10, 2019

Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 232 (2009) (official is entitled to qualified immunity if, at time of violation, it was not clearly established that conduct was unconstitutional); see also United States v. … Becker, 715 F.3d 691, 694 (8th Cir. 2013) (district court must resolve issues surrounding qualified immunity with sufficient clarity to allow for effective appellate review). 1 While we express no opinion

Ronald E. Stevens, Individually and as Guardian of the Person and Estate of Bradley Edwin Stevens, a Disabled Person v. Richard Umsted

131 F.3d 697 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Dec 16, 1997

However, we also found that even though the state caseworker owed a duty to protect the1 child, the caseworker was entitled to qualified immunity because the duty was not clearly established at the time of the events. … “To determine whether a defendant is entitled to qualified immunity, however, we must determine whether he violated a clearly established constitutional right at the time he took his action.” Hill v.

Ward v. Anderson

494 F.3d 929 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jul 24, 2007

The defendant DFS employees moved for summary judgment, contending that they were entitled to qualified immunity and that the W ards had failed to allege any “clearly established” constitutional violation. … The district court granted the D FS employees’ motion for sum mary judgment, holding that they were entitled to qualified immunity and that the W ards failed to provide evidence of any clearly established constitutional

Mckinney v. Duplain

463 F.3d 679 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Sep 12, 2006

, the issue whether the federal right allegedly infringed was clearly established . . . ." … claims for which he asserted qualified immunity."