Case law

Clemmons v. Estate of Brooks

477 F.3d 962 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Feb 12, 2007

Qualified Immunity We review de novo the district court's denial of qualified immunity to Investigator Brooks. McClendon v. Story County Sheriff's Office, 403 F.3d 510, 515 (8th Cir. 2005). … To determine whether an official is entitled to qualified immunity, we engage in a two-part analysis.

Marcus Ingram v. Israel Hamilton

Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Jun 24, 2026

receive qualified immunity from Section 1983 liability unless their conduct violates clearly established law. … The official invoking qualified immunity bears the burden to show that the right was not clearly established. Id. at 540.

97 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 4285, 97 Daily Journal D.A.R. 7173 Maria Penilla, Michael Penilla Juan Penilla, by and Through Maria Penilla Administratrix Estate v. City of Huntington Park, and Joseph Settles Ioane Tua

115 F.3d 707 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jun 6, 1997

Because the officers have moved for qualified immunity on a motion to dismiss, we decide only whether defendants' alleged conduct violated clearly established constitutional rights. Todd v. … Thus, following Mitchell and Todd we confine our review to the qualified immunity issue. 4 In order to be entitled to qualified immunity, the officers must show that their discretionary conduct did not violate any clearly

Richard Haverda v. Hays County

723 F.3d 586 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jul 17, 2013

Qualified Immunity Analysis Haverda also argues that the district court erred in determining that Appellees were entitled to summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity. … “If the law was clearly established, the immunity defense ordinarily should fail, since a reasonably competent public official should know the law governing his conduct.” Harlow v.

B.C. ex rel. B.C. v. Plumas Unified School District

192 F.3d 1260 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Sep 20, 1999

dog sniff searches were not “clearly established” at the time of the search at issue. … “Government officials are given qualified immunity from civil liability under § 1983 ‘insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have

Reitz v. County Of Bucks

125 F.3d 139 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Sep 8, 1997

Id. 24 To analyze a defense of qualified immunity, we must ascertain whether the law was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation, and we must also decide whether under the existing law an officer reasonably … In this case, the district court determined that the prosecutors did not act in violation of any clearly established statutory or constitutional law and thus dismissed the claim on the grounds of qualified immunity. 25 Although

Hubbard v. Taylor

538 F.3d 229 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Aug 5, 2008

On remand, the District Court found that Defendants were entitled to qualified immunity under either prong of the familiar two-step analysis established by the Supreme Court in Saucier v. … “[A] right is clearly established for purposes of qualified immunity when its contours are ‘sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that right.’ ” Williams v.

Alfred D. Fisichelli v. The City Known as the Town of Methuen

884 F.2d 17 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Aug 28, 1989

It is by now well established that the denial of a substantial claim to qualified immunity can be immediately appealed under that exception. See, e.g., Mitchell v. … We note in passing that defendants had — but eschewed — a further opportunity to test the qualified immunity waters.

Schatz Family v. Franklin County

422 F.3d 655 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Sep 1, 2005

Those defendants appealed, arguing that they were entitled to qualified immunity. … to remove the children, or failed to follow the parents' instructions did not allege violations of clearly established constitutional rights.

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 9 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.

National Commodity & Barter Ass'n v. Archer

31 F.3d 1521 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Aug 4, 1994

qualified immunity. … However as we explain later, we 'decide only one specific question on qualified immunity— whether the defendants’ alleged conduct violated clearly established First Amendment law.

Arkan Ali v. Donald Rumsfeld

649 F.3d 762 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jun 21, 2011

Finally, the district court held that qualified immunity protected the defendants from the Bivens claims because, even if the plaintiffs possess constitutional rights, “those rights were not clearly established at the time … Furthermore, we concluded the defendants were protected by qualified immunity because, even assuming arguendo the detainees possessed rights under the Fifth and Eighth Amendments, those rights were not clearly established

Isaiah Jordan v. Tommy Mosley

487 F.3d 1350 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jun 1, 2007

“Qualified immunity protects government officials performing discretionary functions from civil trials [ ] and from liability if their conduct violates no clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … Qualified immunity ordinarily involves a two-part inquiry. First, we decide whether the facts establish a violation of federal law. See Draper v. Reynolds, 369 F.3d 1270, 1274-75 (11th Cir. 2004).

Hipolito Rodriguez Rodriguez v. Nicholas Munoz Munoz, Executive Director of A.D.T.

808 F.2d 138 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Dec 18, 1986

The district court rejected Munoz’s qualified immunity defense, ruling that the law against discharge of a public employee for political reasons had been clearly established. … In summary, we hold the district court erred in denying Munoz qualified immunity since we conclude the law was not clearly established against his actions.

Hydrick v. Demorales

449 F.3d 978 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · May 31, 2006

Defendants’ Qualified Immunity Defense Defendants also argued that the district court erred when it denied them qualified immunity. … Thus, there are two bodies of law from which we might draw “clearly established” law for qualified immunity purposes: first, where the SVPs claim a violation of a right that is clearly established even in the prison context

No. 91-4084

974 F.2d 1345 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Sep 9, 1992

In that case at pp. 645-46, we spoke of qualified immunity for government officials as follows: 8 While qualified immunity is an affirmative defense, it cannot be analogized to other affirmative defenses because of the interests … that his or her conduct violated clearly established law of which a reasonable person would have known.

Tamas v. Department of Social & Health Services

630 F.3d 833 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Dec 22, 2010

Qualified Immunity [3] The determination of whether qualified immunity shields the Appellants from liability presents a closer and  TAMAS v. … Clearly Established Right [12] The second prong required to defeat qualified immu- nity is a showing that the Appellees’ constitutional rights were clearly established. See Conn, 572 F.3d at 1062.

Larry Wheaton v. Freddye Webb-Petett, Administrator, Adult and Family Services Division of the State of Oregon

931 F.2d 613 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · May 1, 1991

Qualified immunity shields public employees who perform discretionary functions from liability for civil damages where “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … While relevant, this alone does not establish qualified immunity. Anderson, 483 U.S. at 640 , 107 S.Ct. at 3039 .

Dianna Johnson v. Government of the DC

Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Aug 1, 2014

Cir. 2011), and in this case following Bame, held that any constitutional rights the Marshal may have violated were not clearly established, entitling him to qualified immunity. … any such right was sufficiently clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct to overcome qualified immunity.

Vigil v. South Valley Academy

247 F. App'x 982 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Sep 12, 2007

Qualified Immunity “Qualified immunity generally shields from liability for civil damages government officials performing discretionary functions insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or … and (2) the constitutional right was clearly established at the time of the alleged conduct.”