Case law

Bonide Products, Inc. v. Cahill

223 F.3d 141 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Aug 22, 2000

We turn first to the only close question in this case: whether Clarke was entitled to qualified immunity on Bonide's 1983 claim for malicious prosecution. 14 While the right to be free from malicious prosecution is a clearly … established right, "defendants may nevertheless enjoy qualified immunity if it was objectively reasonable for them to believe that their actions did not violate that right[]."

Ramon Monge-Vazquez v. Santos Rohena-Betancourt, Pablo Ortiz Lebron v. Alejandro Santiago Nieves, Etc.

813 F.2d 22 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Mar 10, 1987

Defendants moved for partial summary judgment on the issue of qualified immunity in both cases, but the district courts denied their motions. … The information relevant to the issue of qualified immunity is the nature of the position at the time of the discharge, not at some later date. 4 .

Hill v. Scott

349 F.3d 1068 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Nov 14, 2003

The district court granted summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity. 8 Qualified immunity is available to government officials who prove their conduct did "not violate clearly established statutory or Constitutional … To avoid summary judgment based on qualified immunity, Hill had to proffer sufficient evidence to find a violation of a Constitutional right, show the alleged right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation

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 .

Jackson v. Mann

196 F.3d 316 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Nov 5, 1999

The Qualified Immunity Defense In general, public officials are entitled to qualified immunity if: (1) their conduct does not violate clearly established constitutional rights; or (2) it was objectively reasonable for them … not entitled to qualified immunity.

Friedman v. Boucher

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Sep 8, 2009

Because Friedman’s rights were clearly established at the time that Defendants took the sample, the Defendants are not enti- tled to qualified immunity. … immunity because the law is not clearly established.

Washington v. Wilmore

407 F.3d 274 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Apr 28, 2005

As to that claim, the district court denied qualified immunity. Because we conclude that Washington has alleged the violation of a clearly established constitutional right, we affirm. I. A. … Government officials performing discretionary functions are entitled to qualified immunity from liability for civil damages to the extent that “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional

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."

Steven Whiting v. George I. Kirk, Jr., Robert S. Choquette, Steven Whiting v. George I. Kirk, Jr.

960 F.2d 248 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Apr 6, 1992

Qualified Immunity Generally, “government officials performing discretionary functions, ... are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … in light of the legal rules that were ‘clearly established’ at the time it was taken,.... ” *251 Anderson v.

Torres v. City of Los Angeles

548 F.3d 1197 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Nov 12, 2008

The second question is whether the constitutional right at issue is “clearly estab- lished.” Id. at 202. As Defendants argue, qualified immunity is a question of law, not a question of fact. Hunter v. … But Defendants are only entitled to qualified immu- nity as a matter of law if, taking the facts in the light most favorable to Torres, they violated no clearly established con-  TORRES v.

Lowinger v. Broderick

50 F.3d 61 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Mar 22, 1995

Summary Judgment and Qualified Immunity B. … immunity is "whether a reasonable official could have believed his actions were lawful in light of clearly established law and the information the official possessed at the time of his allegedly unlawful conduct."

Al-Jundi v. Estate of Rockefeller

885 F.2d 1060 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Sep 15, 1989

had not violated clearly established law. … The Supreme Court has instructed that the defense of qualified immunity is available only to the extent that the defendant’s “conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable

Tamara Epperson v. Dan Smith

Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Nov 10, 2020

Smith and Coleman appeal the denial of qualified immunity, raising three arguments. … But, not all orders denying claims for qualified immunity at the summary judgment stage are immediately appealable. Id.

Perkins v. City of West Covina

113 F.3d 1004 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · May 9, 1997

Qualified immunity A law enforcement officer is entitled to qualified immunity in a § 1983 action if the district court determines that, in light of clearly established principles governing the conduct in question at the … We affirm the district court’s finding of qualified immunity. II.

J.D. Hill v. Randy Johnson

160 F.3d 469 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Nov 16, 1998

“Qualified immunity shields government officials from *471 suit unless their conduct violates a clearly established constitutional or statutory right of which a reasonable person would have known.” Id. … Because the Sheriffs conduct did not violate a clearly established constitutional or statutory right of which a reasonable person would have known, the Sheriff and the officers are entitled to qualified immunity.

Austin v. Harrison County TX

328 F.3d 204 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Apr 25, 2003

Gilley, 500 U.S. 226, 232 (1991). of qualified immunity and official immunity. … City of Baton Rouge, 211 out the violation of a clearly established F.3d 913, 918-19 (5th Cir. 2000).

Alfaro v. Labador

300 F. App'x 85 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Nov 14, 2008

Accordingly, the District Court properly denied the motion to dismiss on qualified immunity grounds. … Because this is an interlocutory appeal, our jurisdiction “is limited to circumstances where the qualified immunity defense may be established as a matter of law and ‘is not available where the immunity issue turns on disputed

Robles v. Prince George's County

308 F.3d 437 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Oct 29, 2002

PRINCE GEORGE’S COUNTY immunity if that right was not clearly established at the time of the incident.")(emphasis added). … Rather, it appears that the panel actually granted qualified immunity either on the wholly illegitimate ground that the officers did not sub- jectively understand that their conduct violated clearly established law, or on

Joyce v. Tewksbury

104 F.3d 507 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Jan 23, 1997

But qualified immunity does not shield violations of clearly established constitutional principles merely because the specific factual situation in which a violation arises has novel features. … In this case the police transgressed the clearly established rule laid down by the Steagald Court.

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