Case law

Todd E. Prater v. John Dahm

Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jul 17, 1996

They argue that their actions did not violate Prater's clearly established constitutional right to protection from inmate attacks, and thus that they are entitled to qualified immunity. II. … As our cases further establish, however, the question of qualified immunity requires more than a determination that a particular right is "clearly established" in the abstract. See Anderson v.

Robert Roybal v. Toppenish School District

871 F.3d 927 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Sep 20, 2017

In this case, the district court concluded, as a matter of law, that Toppenish violated Roybal’s clearly established due process rights. … We do not have jurisdiction, however, to review the denial of qualified immunity as to Roybal’s First Amendment retaliation claim.

Gardiner v. Incorporated Village of Endicott

50 F.3d 151 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Mar 17, 1995

Public officials are entitled to qualified immunity if (1) their conduct did not violate a plaintiffs clearly established constitutional rights or (2) it was objectively reasonable for them to believe that their conduct did … For qualified immunity to attach, it is not enough that an officer believes that his conduct comports with clearly established rights; that belief must also be reasonable.

Townes v. City Of New York

176 F.3d 138 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · May 6, 1999

immunity motion was denied on the ground that Townes had a clearly established right to be free from an unreasonable stop of the taxicab in which he was a passenger. … We have jurisdiction over the order denying qualified immunity, see Golino v.

Anas Elhady v. Unidentified CBP Agents

18 F.4th 880 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Nov 19, 2021

And because the court also found that this right was clearly established, it held that qualified immunity did not protect Bradley. Bradley appeals the denial of qualified immunity. … There, the Fifth Circuit resolved the case based on qualified immunity’s clearly established prong. See Hernandez v. United States, 785 F.3d 117, 120–21 (5th Cir. 2015) (en banc).

Rosario-Diaz v. Gonzalez

140 F.3d 312 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Apr 2, 1998

The qualified immunity doctrine shields public officials sued in their individual capacities in section 1983 cases from liability "insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … In reaching this conclusion, we do not denigrate the important purpose served by the qualified immunity doctrine.

Harbury v. Deutch

233 F.3d 596 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Dec 12, 2000

immunity because the scope of the alleged right was not clearly established. … For purposes of qualified immunity, it is not enough for a plaintiff to allege that a defendant’s conduct violated a right that is clearly established in general terms.

Finelli v. Tabb

67 F.3d 67 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Oct 18, 1995

II Government officials who perform discretionary functions, including law enforcement officers, are shielded from civil liability to the extent their conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … If the issue on appeal is whether the constitutional right that was allegedly violated was “clearly established,” then the denial of summary judgment is immediately appealable.

Cooper v. Dupnik

924 F.2d 1520 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Feb 6, 1991

Appellant Tucson Police Department argues that the district court erred in denying qualified immunity on Count Five of the complaint because the law is clearly established that defamation can state a section 1983 claim. … established on this point as of May 8, 1986, and thus Ronstadt forfeits his qualified immunity.

Jerry Nelson v. Keyvon Sellers

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

clearly established law.” … Nelson’s Right Was Clearly Established. All that remains is “the clearly established prong of the qual- ified immunity inquiry.” Helm v.

Beck v. City of Upland

527 F.3d 853 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · May 28, 2008

Qualified Immunity Beck has met his burden to establish causation on both his First and Fourth Amendment causes of action. … See Saucier, 533 U.S. at 201, 121 S.Ct. 2151 (discussing step one of the qualified immunity inquiry) All that remains is to determine whether the pertinent law was clearly established at the time of the incidents in this

David Danser v. Patricia Stansberry

Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Jul 3, 2014

The doctrine protects government officials from liability for civil damages, provided that their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights within the knowledge of a reasonable person … When the plaintiff has satisfied this initial step, a court must determine whether the right at issue was “clearly established” at the time of the events in question. 7 Id.

Rogers v. County of San Joaquin

487 F.3d 1288 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · May 29, 2007

Reasonable Official: [11] In order to assess Royal’s claim of qualified immunity, we must conduct a two-part analysis: “1) Was the law govern- ing the official’s conduct clearly established? … [12] Notwithstanding this clearly established law, the dis- trict court granted Royal qualified immunity, holding that the application of the law to medical neglect was not clearly established.

Wilson v. Schillinger

761 F.2d 921 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · May 1, 1985

The Supreme Court has extended the application of the Harlow "clearly established rights" standard for qualified immunity to cases, such as this one, in which defendants are sued under 42 U.S.C. … Thus, to avoid the recovery-preclusive effects of qualified immunity, plaintiff must have proven that defendants had reason to know they were violating plaintiff's clearly established equal protection rights by enforcing

Hicks v. Feeney

850 F.2d 152 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jul 19, 1988

Finally, the district court found that because Hicks's rights were not "clearly established" at the time of the violation, Feeney was entitled to qualified immunity. … If it were clearly established that this confinement violated Hicks's constitutional rights, then Feeney does not have qualified immunity. Id.

Lewis v. Sacramento County

98 F.3d 434 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Oct 9, 1996

The court therefore found that the law regarding Lewis's Fourteenth Amendment right to life and personal security was not clearly established and granted summary judgment in favor of Officer Smith on qualified immunity grounds … Elder, 510 U.S. at 510-11 , 114 S.Ct. at 1020 . 42 Whether a government official "is entitled to qualified immunity turns on a two part inquiry: '(1) Was the law governing the official's conduct clearly established?

Cleveland Brown v. Michael J. Crowley

312 F.3d 782 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jan 28, 2003

violation of clearly established law — has long since been lost. … "Both questions must be answered in the affirmative in order to defeat a government official's claim to qualified immunity," and "the burden is on the plaintiff to allege and prove that the defendant violated a clearly established

Yerardi's Moody Street Restaurant & Lounge, Inc. v. Board of Selectmen

878 F.2d 16 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Jun 22, 1989

concerning qualified immunity. … We will assume, without deciding the issue, that the equal protection right allegedly violated was clearly established because the second prong of the analysis establishes that the individual defendants are entitled to qualified

Leon Bates v. J.W. Jean

745 F.2d 1146 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Oct 12, 1984

Under the doctrine of qualified immunity the central question is whether the conduct complained of violated clearly established constitutional or statutory rights. Id. No other circumstances are relevant. Davis v. … Because the law proscribing abuse of prisoners was clearly established as of that date, following the dictates of Harlow v.

Meyers v. Redwood City

400 F.3d 765 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Mar 9, 2005

Defendants claim that they did not violate the Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights and, in the alternative, that those rights were not clearly established and Defendants have qualified immunity from suit. … The court also found that the law governing repossession of cars was well established to defeat Defen- dants’ claim of qualified immunity.