Case law

Jean-Baptiste v. Gutierrez

627 F.3d 816 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Dec 6, 2010

Officer Gutierrez moved for summary judgment based on qualified immunity. … Officer Gutierrez argued that he acted reasonably in using deadly force to protect himself and persons near the scene and, in the alternative, his actions did not violate clearly established law.

Gausvik v. Perez

345 F.3d 813 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Oct 3, 2003

Penman, 75 F.3d 1311, 1317 (9th Cir.1996) (en banc) (exercising jurisdiction over the purely legal issue of whether the “defendants’ alleged conduct violated clearly established law”). III. … Qualified Immunity Perez is entitled to qualified immunity if his “conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v.

Sikes v. Gaytan

218 F.3d 491 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jul 26, 2000

It is clear, however, that regardless of whether the trial court submits the issues of liability and qualified immunity in one or two interrogatories, the central focus is on whether the trial court correctly and clearly … was objectively reasonable in the light of the legal rules clearly established at the time of the incident in issue and that the defendant is therefore not liable.

Ronald Ketcham v. City of Mount Vernon

992 F.3d 144 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Mar 29, 2021

To demonstrate entitlement to qualified immunity, the officers must 8 show that their actions did not violate clearly established law, or that it was 9 objectively reasonable for them to believe that their actions … established law.

Eubanks v. Gerwen

40 F.3d 1157 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Dec 22, 1994

This Circuit has prescribed a two-part analysis for the defense of qualified immunity. … of fact must be resolved to determine if the government official’s conduct violated clearly established law.

Sam Wolk v. David Hutchinson

Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jul 12, 2024

The Supervisory Defendants contend on appeal that Wolk’s claims are barred by qualified immunity, citing the lack of a clearly established constitutional violation. See Baude v. … Wolk has not shown it was clearly established as of April 2021 that officers effect a seizure when they use force to disperse protestors.

Anant Kumar Tripati v. United States Immigration And Naturalization Service

784 F.2d 345 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Feb 20, 1986

The officer had claimed qualified immunity. Again, we agree. … "[G]overnment officials performing discretionary functions, generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which

Koger v. Bryan

523 F.3d 789 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Apr 24, 2008

A plaintiff seeking to defeat an assertion of qualified immunity must establish “that the law concerning the plaintiffs asserted right was clearly established at the time the challenged conduct occurred.” Id. … Those rights being clearly established at the relevant time, we conclude that the prison officials are not entitled to qualified immunity. F.

Prue v. City Of Syracuse

26 F.3d 14 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jun 6, 1994

Qualified Immunity. 21 The doctrine of qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions from liability for civil damages "insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 638 , 107 S.Ct. 3034, 3038 , 97 L.Ed.2d 523 (1987). 22 To establish qualified immunity, defendants must show either that their conduct "did not violate 'clearly established rights' of which a reasonable

Carroll White v. Burdette Searcey

696 F.3d 740 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Oct 15, 2012

“Qualified immunity shields government officials from liability in a § 1983 action unless the official’s conduct violates a clearly established constitutional or statutory right of which a reasonable person would have known … was clearly established in 1989.

Ramirez v. Oklahoma Department of Mental Health

41 F.3d 584 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Nov 28, 1994

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 statutory … The dismissal on qualified immunity grounds with respect to defendants Goodner, LeFlore, Pendergrass and Prigmore still must be considered in light of the second Harlow prong--whether they violated "clearly established statutory

Kiddy-Brown, Sandra v. Blagojevich, Rod

408 F.3d 346 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · May 13, 2005

However, the law of qualified immunity does not require a plaintiff to produce a case that is “directly on point” in order to show that a right is clearly established. Nabozny v. … We now turn to the second part of the qualified immunity inquiry—whether the law was clearly established when Ms. Kiddy-Brown’s employment was terminated in December 2003.

Reisha Simpson v. City of New York

793 F.3d 259 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jul 15, 2015

Qualified Immunity We turn to whether Officer Nelson is entitled to qualified immunity at this stage of the proceedings. … “A police officer is entitled to qualified immunity from liability for his discretionary actions if either (1) his conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person

Brown v. City of Fort Lauderdale

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

The question of qualified immunity rests on whether the law is "clearly established" and whether the facts alleged violate that law. … Whether the facts alleged violate clearly established law is a purely legal question.

Jones, Mark D. v. Wilhelm, Ron

Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Oct 3, 2005

Since Wilhelm’s undisputed actions represent a viola- tion of clearly-established, constitutional rights, we find that Wilhelm enjoys no qualified immunity as to the Joneses’ warrant claim. … The Court there- fore held that the officers were not entitled to qualified immunity. Id.

Hansen v. Cannon

122 F. App'x 265 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Nov 29, 2004

Second, was that right clearly established? Id. … Of course our order today does not establish Wolfe’s liability; we have decided only that the facts viewed in the light most favorable to the Hansens would establish a violation of a clearly established Fourth Amendment right

Karen Downard v. Russell Martin

968 F.3d 594 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 31, 2020

To overcome a defendant’s assertion of qualified immunity, a plaintiff must show both (1) that the defendant violated a constitutional right, and (2) that the right was clearly established at the time of the violation. … “When federal qualified immunity and Ohio state-law immunity under § 2744.03(A)(6) rest on the same questions of material fact, we may review the state-law immunity defense ‘through the lens of the federal qualified immunity

Barney v. City of Eugene

20 F. App'x 683 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Sep 26, 2001

MEMORANDUM ** Joy Kern Barney (“Barney”) appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of several individual police officers and the City of Eugene on the basis of qualified immunity in her action brought … We review the district court’s decision to grant summary judgment on the ground of *685 qualified immunity de novo. LSO, Ltd. v. Stroh, 205 F.3d 1146, 1157 (9th Cir.2000).

Lia Xiong v. Michael Wagner

700 F.3d 282 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Oct 19, 2012

In determining whether qualified immunity applies, “a court considers (1) whether the plaintiff’s allegations show that the defen- dant violated a constitutional right, and (2) whether that right was ‘clearly established’ … Thus, as long as RCHSD workers “could have believed [Thor’s removal] to be lawful, in light of clearly established law and the information [they] possessed,” defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. Id.

Foster Sellers v. United States of America

709 F.2d 1469 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jul 22, 1983

The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the United States, stating that the FBI agents were entitled to qualified immunity from damages liability because the law regarding inventory searches was unclear at … does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.