Case law

Gonzalez-Alvarez v. Rivero Cubano

426 F.3d 422 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Oct 17, 2005

immunity defense, he must show [1] that his allegations, if true, establish a constitutional violation; [2] that the right was clearly established; and [3] that a reasonable official would have known that his actions … used the same approach to assert qualified immunity in Alfonso-Delgado v.

Meadows v. Enyeart

627 F. App'x 496 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Oct 1, 2015

“Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, government officials performing discretionary functions ... generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established … After a defendant raises a qualified-immunity defense, the burden. shifts to the plaintiff to demonstrate that the government official violated a right that was so clearly established “that every ‘reasonable official would

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clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … Furthermore, it is doubtful whether one unpublished state trial court decision can "clearly establish" the law for qualified immunity purposes.

Cole v. Ruidoso Municipal Schools

947 F.2d 903 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Oct 29, 1991

On appeal, Defendants argue that the district court erred in denying qualified immunity on Plaintiff’s procedural due process claim because New Mexico law did not clearly establish that the failure to renew 1 Plaintiff’s … A government official is entitled to immunity from liability if the official’s conduct as alleged in the complaint did not violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would

McGarry v. Pallito

687 F.3d 505 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Aug 3, 2012

“The doctrine of qualified immunity protects 17 government officials ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate 18 clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity “if either (a) the 2 defendant’s action did not violate clearly established law, or (b) it was objectively reasonable for 3 the defendant to believe that his action did

Soriano v. Town of Cicero

521 F. App'x 565 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Apr 2, 2013

not address qualified immunity in appellate brief). … Soriano’s failure to argue that the defendants should not receive qualified immunity is significant because Soriano, as the plaintiff, has the burden of establishing that the defendants violated a clearly established constitutional

Foster v. Runnels

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Feb 5, 2009

The District Court granted summary judgment on the grounds that Cole was entitled to qualified immunity because the con- stitutional right was not clearly established at the time of the alleged violation such that it would … RUNNELS was entitled to qualified immunity because the constitutional right in question was not clearly established.

Jones Jr. v. Preuit & Mauldin

822 F.2d 998 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jul 24, 1987

In the context of deciding whether these defendants were entitled to qualified immunity, we are deciding whether or not their actions were clearly unconstitutional. … clearly established constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. 14 They are thus entitled to immunity from damages insofar as the seizure of Mr.

Joe Marsh v. Butler County, Alabama

225 F.3d 1243 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Sep 7, 2000

Qualified immunity protects government officials from civil suit when they have acted within their discretionary functions in a manner that violates "no clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a … entitled to qualified immunity in a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss only if the complaint fails to allege facts that would show a violation of a clearly established constitutional [or federal statutory] right."

Vivian Ann Archie, Lisa Darlene Golden, Lisa G. Couch, Anthony Wayne Couch v. David W. Lanier, Reed Riley

95 F.3d 438 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Sep 11, 1996

” related to the qualified immunity question. … Appellate courts may only review whether the district court “mistakenly identified clearly established law ... given [ ] the facts that [it] assumed when it denied summary judgment for that (purely legal) reason.”

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.

Roberts v. Ward

468 F.3d 963 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Nov 27, 2006

Once a defendant raises the defense of qualified immunity, a plaintiff “must plead the violation of a clearly established constitutional right.” Jackson v. Schultz, 429 F.3d 586, 589 (6th Cir. 2005). … The plaintiffs identify several clearly established constitutional rights that they claim Ward violated, preventing him from being entitled to qualified immunity.

Perry v. Sheahan

222 F.3d 309 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jul 21, 2000

Because the conduct alleged in the complaint would violate the clearly-established right against unreasonable seizures, we reverse the district court's dismissal of the damages claims on the grounds of qualified immunity. … is limited to the rejection of the officers' defense of qualified immunity.

Ramirez v. Knoulton

542 F.3d 124 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Aug 26, 2008

If we find such a violation, “we next consider whether the defendant’s actions were objectively unreasonable in light of clearly established law at the time of the conduct in question.” … “To prevail on an excessive force claim, a plaintiff must establish: ‘(1) injury (2) which resulted directly and only from a use of force that was clearly excessive, and (3) the excessiveness of which was clearly unreasonable

Ronald M. Murphy v. State of Arkansas

127 F.3d 750 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Oct 15, 1997

Qualified Immunity. The individual defendants argue that the district court erred in denying their motion for summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds. … A right is clearly established, for qualified immunity purposes, if the "contours of the right [are] sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that right.” Anderson v.

Matalon v. Hynnes

806 F.3d 627 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Nov 18, 2015

Nevertheless, we include them here, as they do not affect the result of the qualified immunity analysis. … To that end, qualified immunity shields government officials "from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional

Odom v. South Carolina Department of Corrections

349 F.3d 765 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Nov 19, 2003

That is, the right allegedly abridged is "clearly established" for qualified immunity purposes if 26 [t]he contours of the right [are] sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates … To rest denial of qualified immunity on these authorities is nothing less than to read out of existence the foundational notice requirement that officials must have violated clearly established law in order to be held liable

Reed v. City of Cleveland

285 F. App'x 234 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 14, 2008

ANALYSIS Qualified immunity protects government officials from liability for civil damages stemming from their performance of discretionary functions so long as “their conduct does not violate clearly established … established law”); see also Johnson v.