Case law

Craft v. Wipf

810 F.2d 170 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jan 26, 1987

As noted above, the District Court did not address the qualified immunity question, although it clearly was raised in defendants’ answer and in their motion for summary judgment. In Mitchell v. … The Mitchell opinion stressed that qualified immunity is immunity from suit, not merely immunity from liability; it includes the right to avoid pretrial discovery. 105 S.Ct. at 2815-16 .

Kevin Lee Stevens v. Gerald Corbell

798 F.2d 120 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Aug 8, 1986

The Supreme Court holds that governmental officers performing discretionary actions in line of duty are immune from civil liability for their actions unless they violate clearly established law. E.g., Mitchell v. … Here the district court denied defendants’ immunity on an issue of law: the scope of qualified immunity.

Barron v. Livingston

42 F. App'x 793 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 13, 2002

Qualified immunity protects government officials performing discretionary functions from liability for civil damages as long as “ ‘their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … In order to survive a defendant’s assertion of qualified immunity, the plaintiff must allege sufficient facts to show that the defendant’s conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right. Saucier v.

Rhonda Collins Barbara Hall Suzanne Jacks Ileana Bergere Chris Martin Natalie Nickle Sandra Perpignani Thomas Stolmar v. Frank Jordan, James Arnold John Newlin Walter Cullop, Rhonda Collins Barbara Hall Suzanne Jacks Ileana Bergere Chris Martin Natalie Nickle Sandra Perpignani Thomas Stolmar v. Frank Jordan, Rhonda Collins Barbara Hall Suzanne Jacks Ileana Bergere Chris Martin Natalie Nickle Sandra Perpignani Thomas Stolmar v. Frank Jordan, Richard Hongisto

110 F.3d 1363 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Mar 21, 1997

Thus, we have jurisdiction to consider Hongisto's legal contention that he is entitled to qualified immunity because the law was not clearly established that, given the events of the previous day, an order to ban all demonstrations … Such conduct would violate clearly established First and Fourth Amendment rights. 39 Jordan's second contention is that he is entitled to qualified immunity because the plaintiffs have neither demonstrated a sufficient causal

Whitfield v. Melendez-Rivera

431 F.3d 1 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Dec 6, 2005

Qualified immunity: officers Lebrón and Mangomé Defendants Lebrón and Mangomé argue that the district court erred in not granting them qualified immunity for two reasons. … Public officials are therefore entitled to qualified immunity unless the facts establish that their conduct violated a constitutional right that was “clearly established” at the time of the violation

Brannum v. Overton Cnty Sch Bd

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Feb 20, 2008

Under the qualified immunity doctrine, public officials cannot be held liable for violating a person’s constitutional rights unless the right was clearly established at the time of the alleged improper conduct. … Creighton, 483 U.S. 635 (1987), the Supreme Court articulated the meaning of “clearly established” in the context of the defense of qualified immunity: The contours of the right must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable

Carver v. City of Cincinnati

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jan 18, 2007

repeatedly without ever becoming clearly established. … established right in order to overcome the officers’ motion to dismiss on the basis of qualified immunity.

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

Grune v. Rodriguez

176 F.3d 27 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Apr 26, 1999

Defendants also argued that they were entitled to qualified immunity because they had not violated any “clearly established” rights of plaintiff. … Discussion Appellants argue on this appeal that they are immune from suit under the doctrine of qualified immunity because then-actions did not “violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable

70 Fair empl.prac.cas. (Bna) 16, 67 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 43,913 Kingsley Genas v. State of New York Department of Correctional Services, Thomas A. Coughlin Iii, Stephen Dalsheim, Donald McLaughlin and John McGuinness

75 F.3d 825 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Feb 12, 1996

not violate these clearly established rights." … If the right at issue was not clearly established at the time of the violation, the court should sustain the qualified immunity defense.

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.

Spavone v. New York State Department of Correctional Services

719 F.3d 127 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jun 20, 2013

Qualified immunity therefore extends to 13 circumstances where an official’s conduct “does not violate clearly established 14 statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have 15 known,” … This entitles Fischer and Joy to qualified immunity. See McKenna 12 v.

Schultz v. Sundberg

759 F.2d 714 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Apr 30, 1985

The executive officials are entitled to qualified immunity Recently, in Harlow v. … The defendants have a qualified immunity for their actions.

Scicluna v. Wells

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Oct 2, 2003

Doctrine of qualified immunity suffice. See Fed. R. Civ. … Scicluna testified in his deposition that he told Carrizales of the conflict situation with O’Sullivan and of the relevant “If the law was clearly established, the immunity defense MDOC regulations.

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.

Buckner v. Toro

116 F.3d 450 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jul 1, 1997

The district court granted qualified immunity to each of these defendants, and the Fifth Circuit affirmed. Id. … order to establish municipal liability.

David Walker, for Himself and as Next Best Friend for Cadin Wayne Walker, McKaela Tandi Walker and Andrew Walker Debbie Walker, for Herself, as Personal Representative of the Estate of David Walker, as Next Best Friend for Cadin Wayne Walker, McKaela Tandi Walker and Andrew Walker Patti Walker Stratton Chad Stratton Tyree Lamph, Individually, and for and on Behalf of Dakota ("Cody") Lamph Amy Melissa Lamph, Individually, and for and on Behalf of Dakota ("Cody") Lamph v. City of Orem, a Utah Municipality Harold Peterson, Officer City of Pleasant Grove, a Utah Municipality John Clayton, Officer B.J. Robinson, Officer Gordon Smith, Officer of the Department of Public Safety, Orem City, Individually, Utah County David Bateman, Sheriff of Utah County, in His Official and Individual Capacity Darin Durfey, Detective Patty Johnston, Detective Tom Hodgson, Detective, and Jerry Monson, Sgt. Meret Lance McDaniel Deputy, All of the Utah County Sheriff's Department, in Their Individual Capacities, David Walker, for Himself and as Next Best Friend for Cadin Wayne Walker, McKaela Tandi Walker and Andrew Walker Debbie Walker, for Herself, as Personal Representative of the Estate of David Walker, as Next Best Friend for Cadin Wayne Walker, McKaela Tandi Walker and Andrew Walker Patti Walker Stratton Chad Stratton Tyree Lamph, Individually, and for and on Behalf of Dakota ("Cody") Lamph Amy Melissa Lamph, Individually, and for and on Behalf of Dakota ("Cody") Lamph v. City of Orem, a Utah Municipality City of Pleasant Grove, a Utah Municipality John Clayton, Officer B.J. Robinson, Officer Utah County David Bateman, Sheriff of Utah County, in His Official and Individual Capacity Jerry Monson, Sgt. Darin Durfey, Detective Patty Johnston, Detective Tom Hodgson, Detective Meret Lance McDaniel Deputy, All of the Utah County Sheriff's Department, in Their Individual Capacities Gordon Smith, Officer of the Department of Public Safety, Orem City, Individually, and Harold Peterson, Officer, Debbie Walker, as Personal Representative of the Estate of David Walker, and as Next Best Friend for Cadin Wayne Walker, McKaela Tandi Walker and Andrew Walker David B. Walker, for Himself and as Next Best Friend for Cadin Wayne Walker, McKaela Tandi Walker and Andrew Walker Tyree Lamph Amy Melissa Lamph Patti Stratton Walker Chad Stratton v. Orem City, a Utah Municipality Harold Peterson, Officer Pleasant Grove City, a Utah Municipality B.J. Robinson, Officer Richard Case Utah County David Bateman Jerry Monson Meret Lance McDaniel Gordon Smith (Fnu) Gilbert, and John Clayton, Officer, Debbie Walker, as Personal Representative of the Estate of David Walker, and as Next Best Friend for Cadin Wayne Walker, McKaela Tandi Walker and Andrew Walker David Walker, Sr., for Himself and as Next Best Friend for Cadin Wayne Walker, McKaela Tandi Walker and Andrew Walker Tyree Lamph, and Amy Melissa Lamph, Individually and on Behalf of Dakota ("Cody") Lamph Patti Stratton Walker Chad Stratton v. Orem City, a Utah Municipality Harold Peterson, Officer Pleasant Grove City, a Utah Municipality John Clayton, Officer B.J. Robinson, Officer Richard Case David Bateman, Sheriff of Utah County, in His Official and Individual Capacity Darin Durfey Gordon Smith (Fnu) Gilbert, and Utah County Jerry Monson Meret Lance McDaniel

451 F.3d 1139 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jun 27, 2006

Plaintiff's version of the facts therefore shows the violation of a clearly-established constitutional right. We must therefore affirm the district court's order denying qualified immunity to Officer Peterson. … That right is also clearly established. We must therefore affirm the district court's denial of qualified immunity to Officer Clayton.

John M. Bever, Clearyl Davis, John E. Ellifritt, Cecil Fling, Drexeline Perrine, Francis D. Radcliff, Robert W. Robinson, Michael Shepherd, Larry Williams and Larry W. Griffin v. Walter Gilbertson and Charles L. Miller, and John Gum, Wilton Williams, Individually and as Commissioner of the West Virginia Department of Highways and John D. Rockefeller, Iv, Individually and as Governor of the State of West Virginia, John M. Bever, Clearyl Davis, John E. Ellifritt, Cecil Fling, Drexelene Perrine, Francis D. Radcliff, Robert W. Robinson, Michael Shepherd, Larry Williams and Larry W. Griffin v. John D. Rockefeller, Iv, and John Gum, Walter Gilbertson, Wilton Williams, Charles L. Miller, Individually and as Commissioner of the West Virginia Department of Highways

724 F.2d 1083 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Jan 11, 1984

of their political affiliation was clearly established. … Under Harlow, it is sufficient for purposes of good faith immunity if the conduct in question did not violate clearly established rights which a reasonable person would have known.

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