Case law

Decoria v. County of Jefferson

333 F. App'x 171 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · May 20, 2009

Titland is not entitled to qualified immunity if (1) his conduct violated a constitutional right, and (2) that right was “clearly established” at the time of the constitutional violation. Saucier v. … We conclude that the alleged constitutional right at issue here was not “clearly established” in 2005, and that Titland is therefore entitled to qualified immunity.

Sweetin v. City of Texas City

48 F.4th 387 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Sep 2, 2022

The court held that even if there was a genuine dispute of material fact about whether Wylie unconstitutionally seized Sweetin and Stefek, the law was not clearly established enough to survive qualified immunity. … (2) the right was “clearly established at the time.”

Norman L. Berthiaume v. Jean Caron, Betty B. Clark, James D. Bivins and William T. O'DOnOhue

142 F.3d 12 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Apr 21, 1998

immunity for officials who do not violate clearly established rights. … In section 1983 cases, the classical formulation is that an official is immune if his or hér actions did not violate the plaintiffs “clearly established” constitutional rights. Harlow v.

Gena Duckworth etc. v. Bart Saracino etc.

Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jul 19, 2007

right allegedly infringed was clearly established”). … The next step in the qualified immunity analysis “is to ask whether the right was clearly established . . . in light of the specific context of the case.” See Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194, 201 (2001).

Billie Thompson v. Lance Cope

900 F.3d 414 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Aug 14, 2018

Step 2: Clearly Established Law We have appellate jurisdiction to review the legal issue at the second step of qualified immunity analysis: whether the constitutional right that Heishman’s estate asserts was clearly established … In Hope, the Court denied qualified immunity and held that handcuffing a prisoner to a hitching post violated clearly established law. Hope teaches that a case directly on point is not required.

Phillip Turner v. Driver

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Feb 27, 2017

The court reasoned that Turner failed to meet his burden of showing that the defendants were not entitled to qualified immunity because he failed to show that their actions violated any of his clearly established statutory … doing violates that right.” 17 Thus, the right must already be clearly established “at the time of the challenged conduct.” 18 When considering whether a defendant is entitled to qualified immunity, the court “must ask whether

Ronald Hunter, Jr. v. Leeds, City of

941 F.3d 1265 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Nov 1, 2019

The Alabama Supreme Court has largely equated qualified immunity with discretionary-function immunity, and so the same facts which establish an entitlement to qualified immunity may also establish that the officers are … By the same token, the same facts that establish that Kirk is not entitled to qualified immunity also establish that he is not entitled to discretionary-function immunity.

Carvel Bright Frank Ledford v. Harold McClure Individually and in His Official Capacity, a Clerk of the Superior Court of Clay County, North Carolina

865 F.2d 623 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Jan 17, 1989

Public officials, such as the defendant, are clothed with qualified immunity in the performance of discretionary functions when the action does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which the … The finding that the doctrine of qualified immunity was applicable warranted dismissal of the claims against the defendant in his individual capacity. IV.

York v. City of Las Cruces

523 F.3d 1205 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Apr 22, 2008

York’s clearly established constitutional rights. 1 The district court denied qualified immunity with respect to Mr. York’s § 1983 claims. … However, because qualified immunity entitles the defendant to avoid litigation, “we have jurisdiction [on appeal] to review purely legal questions that arise from the denial of qualified immunity.” Perez v.

John Hodorowski and Jeraldine Hodorowski v. Ann Ray, Mary Ellen Burns and Texas Department of Human Resources, Defendants

844 F.2d 1210 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jun 14, 1988

“Qualified immunity shields only that conduct not violative of clearly established constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. … More importantly, we note that qualified immunity protects executive officials as long as their actions do not violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.

Holloman Ex Rel. Holloman v. Harland

370 F.3d 1252 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · May 28, 2004

judgment on qualified immunity grounds. … Consequently, once we deny defendants summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds because the plaintiff has alleged violations of clearly established rights, the defendants may not later attempt to re-assert qualified

Cortes-Reyes v. Salas-Quintana

608 F.3d 41 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Jun 17, 2010

- 16 -  Qualified immunity protects government officials "from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … Moreover, as we explain below, that very uncertainty is critical to our analysis of the clearly established prong of the qualified immunity doctrine.

Patricia Hagans v. Franklin Cnty Sheriff's Office

695 F.3d 505 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 23, 2012

Because the officer did not violate clearly established law by using the taser in this setting, qualified immunity protects him from this lawsuit. … Page 5 does not carefully define the right, it risks collapsing the two qualified-immunity inquiries into one, permitting the constitutional-violation inquiry always to answer the clearly established inquiry.

Punsky v. City of Portland

54 F.4th 62 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Nov 29, 2022

Qualified Immunity Public officials are immune under the doctrine of qualified immunity if sued in their individual capacities unless "(1) they violated a federal statutory or constitutional … right, and (2) the unlawfulness of their conduct was 'clearly established at the time.'"

Fredrick Waid v. County of Lyon

87 F.4th 383 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Nov 21, 2023

III Qualified immunity protects government officials “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would … COUNTY OF LYON 19 IV Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity on the Fourth Amendment claim because plaintiffs’ rights were not clearly established.

Robert W. Clark v. Joseph G. Brown

861 F.2d 66 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Nov 4, 1988

Indeed it is not clearly established under current law. … They are not a bar to qualified immunity. Brown is entitled to qualified immunity.

Soares v. State of Connecticut

8 F.3d 917 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Nov 2, 1993

Accordingly, Konow is entitled to summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity. II. … that their conduct was necessarily "objectively reasonable," they can prevail on their qualified immunity defense if they can show that the rights plaintiff claims to have been violated were not "clearly established."

Bobby Bland v. B. Roberts

730 F.3d 368 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Sep 18, 2013

In determining whether a defendant is entitled to qualified immunity, a court must decide (1) whether the defendant has violated a constitutional .right of the plaintiff and (2) whether that right was clearly established … Rather, in consider *394 ing whether constitutional rights were clearly established for qualified-immunity purposes, we view the issue from “the layman’s perspective,” Ross v.

Elizabeth Carley v. Romeo Aranas

103 F.4th 653 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jun 3, 2024

Aranas was entitled to qualified immunity because no clearly established law rendered the HCV policies unconstitutional at the time of the alleged violation. … immunity because they violated no clearly established law”).

95 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 8958, 95 Daily Journal D.A.R. 15,643 Dawud Halisi Malik, A/K/A David W. Riggins v. Neal Brown, and Carol L. Moses, Assoc. Supt. Kathy Kaatz, C.U.S. Sue Kinsinger, C.P.M. Mark Crewson, C.U.S. Virginia Carter, Sgt. Joan Smith, Mail Rm. Personnel John Tice, Sgt. Dick Frank, Sgt. Nancy Hill, Corr. Officer Monica Sukert, Corr. Officer Richard Rooney, Corr. Officer John Fritzpatrick, Sgt. Marie Norman, Corr. Officer S. Giesenoff, C/o Cbcc Schouviller, Lt., Hearing Officer Chase Riveland

71 F.3d 724 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Nov 28, 1995

Qualified immunity requires "a two-part analysis: 1) Was the law governing the official's conduct clearly established? 2) Under that law, could a reasonable officer have believed the conduct was lawful?" Act Up! … "[I]n the absence of binding precedent, a court should look to whatever decisional law is available to ascertain whether the law is clearly established" for qualified immunity purposes, Capoeman v.