Case law

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.

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.

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.

Barrett v. United States

798 F.2d 565 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jul 31, 1986

insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … Where plaintiffs allege the violation of a clearly established Constitutional norm, and that the offensive conduct gave rise to a remedy in damages, qualified immunity is not applicable.

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.

Owen G. Brown and Loreen E. Brown v. United States of America, Department of Housing and Urban Development, Virgilio J. Granata, Thomas Verdon, Ron Santa, Jane Smullins, Robert Wall, Edwin J. Keyes, Robert S. Ernst, Richard Hajjar, Individually and Trading as Hajjar Real Estate Agency, Ann Platt, Charles Beimfohr Construction Co., Charles Beimfohr, A/K/A Karl Beimfohr, Borough of Bogota Police Department, Anthony Yocovelli, Peter Hoffman, William Kennedy, Borough of Bogota, Patrick Carr, Wolfgang Albrecht, John Does and Jane Does. Appeal of Virgilio J. Granata. Virgilio J. Granata, at 87-5910 v. Honorable Clarkson S. Fisher, U.S.D.J. For the District of New Jersey, and Owen G. Brown and Loreen E. Brown

851 F.2d 615 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jun 21, 1988

As the law has developed, government officials who perform discretionary functions have qualified immunity shielding them from liability for civil damages if "their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or … action is a violation) violates a clearly established right.

97 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 9047, 97 Daily Journal D.A.R. 14,611 Robert J. Pelletier v. Federal Home Loan Bank of San Francisco United States of America, John W. Behrens

130 F.3d 429 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Dec 3, 1997

The qualified immunity defense shields government agents' liability for civil damages "insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have … Behrens may, however, appeal the district court's implicit legal determination that the right Behrens allegedly infringed was "clearly established."

Prisco v. United States

851 F.2d 93 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Aug 24, 1988

established law. … In exploring whether a right is clearly established, we must find "some but not precise correspondence" with applicable precedents. People of Three Mile Island v.

Delores Henry v. Melody Hulett

969 F.3d 769 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Aug 11, 2020

Qualified immunity is an affirmative defense that “pro‐ tects government officials ‘from liability for civil damages in‐ sofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established stat‐ utory or constitutional rights of … Whether a right is clearly established hinges on the “objective legal reasonableness of the action, assessed in light of the legal rules that were clearly established at the time it was taken.”

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

Krl, a California General Partnership Roland Womack Nadine Womack Larry Dwight Womack Luke Womack Renee Womack v. Russell Moore David J. Irey Amador County State of California, and Todd D. Riebe Ron Hall, Krl, a California General Partnership Roland Womack Nadine Womack Larry Dwight Womack Luke Womack Renee Womack v. Russell Moore Todd D. Riebe Ron Hall Amador County State of California, and David J. Irey

384 F.3d 1105 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Sep 27, 2004

If yes, "the next, sequential step is to ask whether the right was clearly established." … The district court should have engaged in a qualified immunity analysis with respect to this claim because it could have been resolved as a matter of law. 43 It is clearly established that judicial deception may not be employed

Snell v. Tunnell

920 F.2d 673 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Nov 30, 1990

defendant's alleged conduct violated the law and that law was clearly established when the alleged violation occurred." … Hodorowski, 844 F.2d at 1214 (qualified immunity); Austin, 830 F.2d at 1361 (qualified immunity); Meyers, 812 F.2d at 1159 (absolute immunity); Myers v.

Jeremy Sheets v. Lt. Michael Butera

389 F.3d 772 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Nov 9, 2004

"If no constitutional right would have been violated were the allegations established, there is no necessity for further inquiries concerning qualified immunity." Id. … As previously noted, before we determine whether the law was clearly established for purposes of qualified immunity, we first must determine whether the facts alleged show that the officers violated a constitutional right

Filler v. Kellett

859 F.3d 148 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Jun 15, 2017

It has been observed that absolute immunity, unlike qualified immunity, only rarely turns on questions of fact. See Ellis v. Coffee Cty. … Longanbach, 410 F.3d 630, 639 (9th Cir. 2005) ("Absolute immunity [cannot] be invoked before probable cause was established."); Goldstein v.

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

Daniel Johnson v. Joe Kegans and John Holmes

870 F.2d 992 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Apr 24, 1989

Henzel affirms a summary judgment for the defendant on the basis of qualified immunity, noting that "[sjtate officials are protected by a qualified immunity from *996 § 1983 damage suits upon a showing that they acted in … Fowler reverses a judgment for the defendants based on qualified immunity, reasoning that the constitutional right violated was clearly established at the time, but does not advert to absolute immunity.

Robert Wallace v. Craig Benware

67 F.3d 655 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Nov 27, 1995

Benware maintains that even if he is not entitled to judgment as a matter of law under Upton and its progeny, he at least should be granted qualified immunity because it was not clearly established in June 1992 that a sheriff … In my view, we should not require that an existing case actually decline to extend an exception to clearly established law before we deny a claim to qualified immunity.

Revis v. Meldrum

489 F.3d 273 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 19, 2007

The analysis of qualified immunity generally proceeds through a two-step inquiry. … Eaton is entitled to qualified immunity for the violation 45 Having determined that Deputy Eaton did in fact violate one of Revis's constitutional rights, we next evaluate "whether the right is so `clearly established' that