Case law

Griffith v. Coburn

473 F.3d 650 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jan 10, 2007

Katz, the Supreme Court established a two-pronged inquiry to determine an official's entitlement to qualified immunity in the context of an excessive force claim. … The court held that the district court's grant of summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity was not proper because the officers had violated Drummond's clearly established rights. Id. at 1062.

Bateson v. Geisse

857 F.2d 1300 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Sep 20, 1988

Absolute and Qualified Immunity The City of Billings has no immunity from lawsuits resulting from their constitutional torts. Owen v. … Thus, whether the city council members are immune “turns on the objective reasonableness of their conduct in light of clearly established law, not on their subjective good faith.” Lowe 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

Earnest Bell, Jr. v. Robert Johnson, Mark Stimpson Allen Blatter

308 F.3d 594 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Oct 17, 2002

Qualified immunity involves a two-step inquiry. … of the qualified immunity test.

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.

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

79 Fair empl.prac.cas. (Bna) 1324, 12 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. C 692 Mathas Brown v. Carol Cochran, the Personal Representative for the Estate of Ron Cochran, in His Individual Capacity

171 F.3d 1329 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Apr 8, 1999

support a finding that particular conduct occurred. 516 U.S. 299, 312 , 116 S.Ct. 834, 842 , 133 L.Ed.2d 773 (1996). 10 The question of qualified immunity rests on whether the law is "clearly established" and whether the … Whether the facts alleged violate clearly established law is a purely legal question.

Thomas v. Gomez

143 F.3d 1246 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · May 12, 1998

Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 399 U.S. 905 , 90 S.Ct. 2203 , 26 L.Ed.2d 559 (1970), Fourth and Fifth Amendment action because the law was not clearly established on whether he had the regulatory … Jones; 515 U.S. 304, 307 , 115 S.Ct. 2151, 2153-54 , 132 L.Ed.2d 238 (1995) (holding that where the distinct court’s order denying qualified immunity established a fact-related dispute about the pretrial record, defendants

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.

Errol Lynch v. Joseph S. Cannatella, Jr.

810 F.2d 1363 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Feb 27, 1987

To the extent that it turns on an issue of law, the denial of a claim of qualified official immunity is immediately appealable under the “collateral order” doctrine established by Cohen v. … The thesis that official immunity abides unless “clearly established” constitutional rights are violated was first asserted 21 and still remains as a litmus to shield officials who act in a situation in which the bounds of

Keenan v. Tejeda

290 F.3d 252 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Apr 29, 2002

Qualified Immunity Whether a government official is entitled to qualified immunity, to the extent that it turns on a question of law, is a question that we review de novo, even where the district court has … If the officer’s conduct was objectively reasonable in the light of clearly established federal law, he is entitled to qualified immunity from suit.

Timothy Finley v. Erica Huss

102 F.4th 789 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · May 22, 2024

Clearly Established Law Proving an Eighth Amendment violation isn’t enough to defeat qualified immunity. … It also denied her qualified immunity because the inmate’s “right to have a serious psychological illness treated seriously” was “clearly established.” Id. at 270.

Clemente v. VASLO

679 F.3d 482 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · May 15, 2012

Page 8 “The doctrine of 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 … Short of threatening termination, what public employers could do to obtain an employee’s consent to conduct an inspection was not clearly established. Duchane and Bartok are thus entitled to qualified immunity.

John Sabo v. Megan Erickson

100 F.4th 880 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Apr 30, 2024

“The doctrine of qualified immunity protects gov- ernment officials from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … We held that the record- keeper was not entitled to qualified immunity because “closely analogous” cases, including Sample and Haygood, had clearly established the obligation of corrections officials—and recordkeepers in

Lundgren v. Mcdaniel

814 F.2d 600 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Apr 13, 1987

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY 12 Appellants argue that even if their conduct was unconstitutional, they are entitled to qualified immunity on the section 1983 claim because their conduct did not violate a clearly established constitutional … City of Clewiston, 644 F.Supp. 1417, 1420-22 (S.D.Fla.1986) (Florida policeman who shot a fleeing felon in 1979 did not violate a clearly established constitutional right at the time, and is entitled to qualified immunity

Amber Jackson v. Cody Swanger

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Apr 5, 2024

To the contrary, Swanger’s argument that under the pleaded facts he did not violate clearly established law raises a “core qualified immunity issue[].” … Brandt’s assertion that he did not violate clearly established law when he stopped the vehicle is a “core qualified immunity is- sue[].” Cottrell, 85 F.3d at 1484 (quotation marks omitted).

Iqbal v. Hasty

490 F.3d 143 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jun 14, 2007

A defendant will be entitled to qualified immunity if either (1) his actions did not violate clearly established law or (2) it was objectively reasonable for him to believe that his actions did not violate clearly established … clearly established law."

Sefeldeen v. Alameida

238 F. App'x 204 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jun 4, 2007

If Petitioner successfully alleges a violation of his constitutional or statutory rights, the analysis proceeds to determine whether the law governing the state official’s conduct was clearly established, such that a reasonable … As such, Petitioner fails to identify a constitutional violation, making the grant of summary judgment based on qualified immunity appropriate.

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.

Lewis D. Holloway v. San Reeves

277 F.3d 1035 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jan 24, 2002

The defendant board members maintained that they were entitled to qualified immunity. We review a rejection of a qualified immunity defense de novo. Burnham v. Ianni, 119 F.3d 668, 673 (8th Cir. 1997) (en banc). … "Qualified immunity shields state officials from civil liability when 'their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.' " Doe v.