Case law

Ronald J. Vacca v. David Barletta

933 F.2d 31 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · May 9, 1991

Barletta claimed absolute, or in the alternative qualified, immunity and moved for summary judgment. The district court refused to grant absolute immunity. … QUALIFIED IMMUNITY “[Gjovernment officials performing discretionary functions, generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional

Smith v. Murphy

634 F. App'x 914 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Nov 20, 2015

On appeal, Defendants contend that the district court erred in holding that they were not entitled to qualified immunity from Smith’s excessive force claim. … Qualified immunity protects all government officials except those who violate a “statutory or constitutional right that was clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct.” Carroll v.

Karen Waeschle v. Ljubisa Dragovic

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 22, 2009

The court also found that Dragovic was not entitled to qualified immunity because the quasi-property interest was “clearly established” and because the Medical Examiner No. 08-2228 Waeschle v. … Qualified immunity is applicable unless the official’s conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right. Id. (citation omitted).

Gagan v. Norton

35 F.3d 1473 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Sep 16, 1994

that qualified immunity was warranted. … Air Capitol Aircraft Sales, Inc., 820 F.2d 1127 (10th Cir.1987), and the court reporter defendants do in fact assert the defense of qualified immunity, then we note the burden of showing that there was a violation of clearly

Drimal v. Tai

786 F.3d 219 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · May 15, 2015

of qualified immunity as they relate to each defendant. … Qualified immunity shields government officials “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not *225 violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have

Izen v. Catalina

256 F.3d 324 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jun 29, 2001

Qualified Immunity Izen also appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment based on qualified immunity. … The basic rule of qualified immunity is that: “Government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established

Henriksen v. Bentley

644 F.2d 852 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Mar 26, 1981

Wood, supra (qualified immunity for entry of order and notification of parties). In McCray v. … Where a public official has or may have a defense based on qualified immunity, the burden is on the official to raise the defense and establish his entitlement to immunity. Gomez v.

Drummond v. City of Anaheim

343 F.3d 1052 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Sep 10, 2003

The Constitutional Violation Was Clearly Established 31 Because we hold that Drummond's factual allegations, if true, establish a constitutional violation, we must proceed to the second step in the qualified immunity analysis … immunity: notwithstanding the absence of direct precedent, the law may be, as it was here, clearly established.

McVay v. Sisters of Mercy Health System

399 F.3d 904 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Mar 4, 2005

It further found that Sears was entitled to qualified immunity because his conduct did “ ‘not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’ ” McVay v. … Qualified immunity shields .government officials from civil liability where “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”

Kevin Lee Stevens v. Gerald Corbell

832 F.2d 884 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jan 22, 1988

later determined to have been illegal, does not violate a clearly established constitutional or statutory right of which a reasonable person would have then known. … In such cases the officer can gain immunity by showing that since the legal right in question was not clearly established at the time of his actions, he could not reasonably be expected to have known that his conduct was

Wilson v. Schillinger

761 F.2d 921 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · May 1, 1985

The Supreme Court has extended the application of the Harlow “clearly established rights” standard for qualified immunity to cases, such as this one, in which defendants are sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1982) for alleged … Thus, to avoid the recovery-preclusive effects of qualified immunity, plaintiff must have proven that defendants had reason to know they were violating plaintiffs clearly established equal protection rights by enforcing Directive

Lux v. Hansen

886 F.2d 1064 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Oct 10, 1989

A government official is entitled to the defense of qualified immunity unless he has violated clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. Harlow v. … We held that because removing the children from their homes and placing them in temporary foster care did not violate any clearly established legal standards, the defendants were entitled to qualified immunity.

Rankin v. Klevenhagen

5 F.3d 103 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Oct 18, 1993

First, we determine whether the plaintiff has "allege[d] the violation of a clearly established constitutional right." Siegert v. Gilley, --- U.S. ----, ----, 111 S.Ct. 1789, 1793, 114 L.Ed.2d 277 (1991). … "Whether a defendant asserting qualified immunity may be personally liable turns on the objective legal reasonableness of the defendant's actions assessed in light of clearly established law." Mouille v.

Green v. Bauvi

46 F.3d 189 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jan 25, 1995

immunity. 23 Public officials enjoy a qualified immunity from suits for damages "insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known … Assuming that, in whatever circumstances are at issue, the inmate's right to a hearing within a reasonable time was clearly established at the time of his confinement, the officials are entitled to qualified immunity if it

Eric Darden v. City of Fort Worth, Texas

866 F.3d 698 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Aug 9, 2017

The district court determined that the officers had not violated clearly established law and were thus entitled to qualified immunity. … Once an official pleads qualified immunity, “the burden then shifts to the plaintiff, who.must rebut the defense by establishing a genuine fact issue as to whether the official’s allegedly wrongful conduct violated clearly

Larry U. Josey Harry H. Lloyd Robert Gibson v. William Salisbury, Leonard Riccinto the City of Detroit

14 F.3d 601 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Nov 18, 1993

He discovered evidence of crack cocaine and money that clearly supported Riccinto's report to him. 3 20 We find no basis for denying Salisbury's claim of qualified immunity under these circumstances. … CITY OF DETROIT 21 The City of Detroit is not before us on any claim of good faith or qualified immunity as are the individual defendants in this appeal.

Don Powers v. Northside Independent Sch Dis

951 F.3d 298 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Feb 26, 2020

As superintendent, Woods is entitled to qualified immunity from suit under § 1983 unless Plaintiffs can demonstrate that Woods’ actions violated clearly established constitutional law. See Salas v. … “The second prong of the qualified immunity test is better understood as two separate inquiries: whether the allegedly violated constitutional rights were clearly established at the time of the incident; and, if so, whether

Wilson v. Morgan

54 F. App'x 195 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Dec 17, 2002

violation could be made out on a favorable view of the parties’ submissions, was the right clearly established? … Because the facts alleged show the officers’ conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right, the officers are not entitled to qualified immunity on the unlawful arrest claim.

Harveston v. Cunningham

216 F. App'x 682 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jan 5, 2007

Qualified immunity is appropriate unless the evidence shows that (1) the officers violated Harveston’s constitutional rights, and (2) the rights violated were clearly established. See Saucier v. … Thus, because the right was not clearly established, Officer Cunningham is entitled to qualified immunity and summary judgment was proper on the excessive force claim for use of the pepper spray.

Campbell, Don v. Peters, Howard A.

256 F.3d 695 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jul 11, 2001

Qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions from liability for civil damages unless their conduct violates clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … Furthermore, it is doubtful whether one unpublished state trial court decision can "clearly establish" the law for qualified immunity purposes.