Case law

Mary Ellen Liebe v. Lyle Norton

157 F.3d 574 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Oct 1, 1998

“Qualified immunity shields government officials from suit unless their conduct violated a clearly established constitutional or statutory right of which a reasonable person would have known.” Yowell v. … To withstand the application of qualified immunity, a plaintiff must assert a violation of a constitutional or statutory right; that right must have been clearly established at the time of the violation; and, given the

Evans-Marshall v. Board Of Education

428 F.3d 223 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Nov 1, 2005

Because I find that the alleged Constitutional violation was not "clearly established," I would grant qualified immunity to the individual defendants. … interest may make it more difficult to find the law `clearly established' when assessing claims of qualified immunity."); Borucki v.

Thomas v. Roach

165 F.3d 137 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jan 7, 1999

Claims Against The Police Officers 18 The doctrine of qualified immunity shields police officers acting in their official capacity from suits for damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 , unless their actions violate clearly-established … immunity. 24 Thomas alleged the violation of a clearly-established constitutional right when he alleged that the police used excessive force when arresting him.

Roth v. Veteran's Administration

856 F.2d 1401 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Sep 12, 1988

Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 , 102 S.Ct. 2727 , 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982), the Supreme Court held that a federal official has qualified immunity unless s/he "violate[s] clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … of qualified immunity.

Michael Dowell v. Lincoln County, Missouri

762 F.3d 770 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Aug 8, 2014

The district court concluded Defendants were entitled to qualified immunity. … “Qualified immunity shields government officials from liability and the burdens of litigation in a § 1983 action unless the official’s conduct violates a clearly established constitutional or statutory right of which a reasonable

Couden v. Duffy

446 F.3d 483 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · May 1, 2006

“On the other hand, the plaintiff need not show that there is a prior decision that is factually identical to the case at hand in order to establish that a right was clearly established.” Id. … Moreover, the constitutional right in question was clearly established under the qualified immunity test. The factors relevant to the excessive force analysis are well-recognized, as described above.

Jimmy Letterman v. Jerry Farnsworth

789 F.3d 856 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jun 16, 2015

-6- constitutional right and the constitutional right was clearly established at the time of the violation. Id. … Frank, 454 F.3d 858, 861 (8th Cir. 2006) ("Here, qualified immunity turns on the legal question whether appellants clearly violated the Eighth Amendment.").

Wolfel v. Morris

972 F.2d 712 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Sep 23, 1992

The defendants reassert their defense of qualified immunity. 35 Government officials who perform discretionary functions and whose conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a … reasonable person would have known are entitled to qualified immunity.

Domino v. Texas Department of Criminal Justice

239 F.3d 752 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Feb 7, 2001

This court has stated that the test for qualified immunity “is quite familiar: (1) whether the plaintiff has alleged a violation of a clearly established constitutional right; and (2) if so, whether the defendant’s conduct … As discussed above, the first part of the qualified immunity test - whether Domino has alleged a violation of a clearly established constitutional right - depends on whether the summary judgment evidence, viewed in a light

Center for Bio-Ethical Reform, Inc. v. City of Springboro

477 F.3d 807 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Feb 20, 2007

Plaintiffs’ Rights Were Clearly Established Qualified immunity does not protect those who knowingly violate the law. Malley v. … To decide whether qualified immunity is proper, we again consider whether Defendants violated a “clearly established” constitutional right. Saucier, 533 U.S. at 207.

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

George Thomas Franklin v. Jim Fox Martin Murray Robert Morse Bryan Cassandro John Cuneo, Sergeant Eileen Franklin-Lipsker

312 F.3d 423 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Nov 27, 2002

If an official could reasonably have believed her actions were legal in light of clearly established law and the information she possessed at the time, she is protected by qualified immunity. Saucier v. … Thus, a two-part test controls our qualified immunity analysis. First, we must determine whether the law that governs the official’s conduct was clearly established.

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.

Jessica Jauch v. Choctaw County

886 F.3d 534 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Mar 29, 2018

For all these reasons, the governing law was not clearly established to justify denying qualified immunity to the sheriff. Under Wesby, Jones is not a closely analogous case. … Thus, qualified immunity applies. Our function in this appeal is to determine whether clearly established rights of this prisoner were violated. They were not.

Bines v. Kulaylat

215 F.3d 381 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jun 12, 2000

He also asks us to determine in the first instance whether he is entitled to qualified immunity. II. Discussion A. … The Qualified-Immunity Claim In addition to seeking interlocutory review of his good-faith defense, Ku-laylat also invites us to consider his claim to qualified immunity.

Manzano v. South Dakota Department of Social Services

60 F.3d 505 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jul 25, 1995

The SDDSS defendants moved for summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity. … not deprive the investigators of qualified immunity.

Farrell v. Montoya

878 F.3d 933 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Dec 27, 2017

“[The] defense of qualified immunity . . . shields public officials from damages actions unless their conduct was unreasonable in light of clearly established law. … “In this circuit, to show that a right is clearly established, the plaintiff must point to a Supreme Court or Tenth Circuit decision on point, or the clearly established weight of authority from other courts must have found

Ralph Kermit Winterrowd, 2nd v. Brad L. Nelson John Cyr Jorge Santiago v. Leviticus Washington Michael E. Burkmire Del Smith Dennis Casanovas

480 F.3d 1181 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Mar 30, 2007

Because we held in Meredith that the law on this point was clearly established as of July 10, 1998, it was also clearly established for the later incident here. … qualified immunity.

Espinosa v. City and County of San Francisco

598 F.3d 528 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Mar 9, 2010

For qualified immunity, we determine whether the facts show that (1) the officer’s conduct violated a constitutional right; and (2) the right which was violated was clearly established at the time of the violation. … If the officers violated such a right, but it was not clearly established, then they are entitled to immunity. Id.