Case law

Stuart Hamblen v. County of Los Angeles

803 F.2d 462 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Oct 23, 1986

Appellant now complains that an instruction on the good faith/qualified immunity of the individual defendants should not have been given, because the law with respect to unreasonable seizures and excessive force was “clearly … and excessive force was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation.

Clifford Cummings, Jr. v. City of Akron Rodney Sherman and Howard Vaughn, Jr.

418 F.3d 676 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 22, 2005

In order to defeat Sherman’s and Vaughn’s assertion of qualified immunity, Cummings must demonstrate that (1) Sherman and Vaughn deprived him of a constitutionally protected right, and (2) that the right is “so clearly established … Thus, “[t]he threshold inquiry a court must undertake in a qualified immunity analysis is whether plaintiffs allegations, if true, establish a constitutional violation.” Hope v.

Kwan Wah Liu v. Richard M. Phillips, James D. Goldman

234 F.3d 55 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Nov 28, 2000

Yet the Supreme Court has said that for qualified immunity purposes, a competent public official is also expected ordinarily to “know the law governing his conduct” so far as it may be “clearly established.” Harlow v. … Harlow left open the possibility that there might be “extraordinary circumstances” where an official, acting in ignorance of clearly established law, might still be entitled to qualified immunity. 457 U.S. at 819 , 102 S.Ct

Jacob v. West Bloomfield

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 3, 2008

Only after this first step has been resolved in favor of the plaintiff may a court consider the second step of the qualified immunity analysis: “whether the right was clearly established” at the time of the violation. … This second prong of the qualified immunity test clearly weighs in Plaintiff’s favor.

Valdizan v. Rivera-Hernandez

445 F.3d 63 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Apr 17, 2006

"Qualified immunity protects public officials from civil liability insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known." … A qualified immunity defense, however, raises special considerations.

Nicholas v. Miller

189 F.3d 191 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Aug 13, 1999

Defendants are indeed entitled to qualified immunity, because the First Amendment right of association to form an inmate legal services organization was not clearly established at the time permission to form the Center was … Three questions must be answered in determining whether a right was clearly established at the time defendants acted such that defendants would not be entitled to the defense of qualified immunity: “whether the right was

Keller v. Faecher

44 F. App'x 828 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Aug 16, 2002

violated a constitutional right” that is clearly established. … The district court therefore erred in refusing to grant qualified immunity to Battalino and Duncan. C. Dr. Meyers Keller has also failed to establish a claim against Dr. Meyers. Keller has not alleged that Dr.

Iwoinakee Gebray Harris-Billups v. Milele Anderson

61 F.4th 1298 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Mar 13, 2023

It first agreed that qualified immunity knocked out Ms. Harris-Billups’s § 1983 claim. … - immunity analysis: whether Officer Anderson’s actions had violated “clearly established” law.

Williams v. United States

957 F.2d 742 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Feb 14, 1992

The issue before us is therefore whether or not the record establishes governmental immunity under 33 U.S.C. § 702c. 1 6 The Supreme Court construed the immunity provision in United States v. … Projects upstream of the facility in question might qualify to trigger the Act if the proper record were made, but the mere presence of a qualifying project upstream of the injury would not immunize all governmental activities

Eduardo Trejo v. Ivan Perez

693 F.2d 482 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Dec 13, 1982

Although Harlow purports to “defin[e] the limits of qualified immunity essentially in objective terms,” once an official’s conduct has violated clearly established law, Harlow requires him to claim extraordinary circumstances … Of course, if the underlying offense is clearly established, an arrest for its violation without probable cause is a violation of clearly established law. We read Saldana to say no more.

Arnold v. Curtis

243 F. App'x 408 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Aug 1, 2007

Arnold’s clearly established rights. Mr. … Whether inside or outside the qualified immunity context, it is not our province to act as fact finders on summary judgment.

McIntosh v. Partridge

540 F.3d 315 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Aug 11, 2008

Under Atascadero, Congress must affirmatively and clearly grant jurisdiction to federal courts to abrogate state sovereign immunity. … The evidence on official immunity, as well as that on qualified immunity (and on qualified privilege) appears to be fully developed.

Jane Doe v. Fort Smith School

214 F.3d 952 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jun 2, 2000

qualified immunity. … 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." Harlow v.

Bilbrey v. Brown

738 F.2d 1462 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Aug 2, 1984

Those constitutional rights must be clearly established at the time of the challenged action. See id.; Procunier v. … clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.

Baker v. Coburn

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · May 19, 2023

violated clearly established law.” … Qualified immunity protects government officials “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established stat- utory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would

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.

Hovater v. Robinson

1 F.3d 1063 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jul 27, 1993

Once a defendant raises the defense of qualified immunity, the plaintiff bears the burden of establishing that the defendant has violated clearly established law. Id. at 131 . … Hovater has failed to meet her burden of establishing a constitutional violation. 5 Sheriff Hill is therefore entitled to qualified immunity.

Lucy Quezada, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Berlinda Griego, Deceased v. The County of Bernalillo Patrick Sauser Alvin J. Campbell

944 F.2d 710 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Sep 9, 1991

“The doctrine of qualified immunity provides that government officials ‘generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights … There are, however, instances when police officers successfully invoke qualified immunity.

Sandy Lewis v. James O'grady, in His Official Capacity as Sheriff of Cook County, Illinois, 1

853 F.2d 1366 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jul 21, 1988

Wade, 804 F.2d at 70 ; Mitchell, 472 U.S. at 520 , “[I]f there are issues of disputed fact upon which the question of immunity turns, or if it is clear that the defendant’s conduct did violate clearly established norms the … based on the qualified immunity of the defendants.

Whalen v. County of Fulton

126 F.3d 400 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Oct 2, 1997

Qualified Immunity The individual defendants argue that they are immune from liability under the doctrine of qualified immunity. … We therefore agree with the individual defendants that the rights sought to be protected were not clearly established and that the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. II.