Case law

Charles E. Lockert v. Gordon H. Faulkner

843 F.2d 1015 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · May 26, 1988

The magistrate reasoned that a prisoner’s constitutional right to marry was not clearly established when the defendants denied Lockert’s requests to marry Samplawski. 3 Therefore, the defendants were immune from damages under … However, Turner does not affect the magistrate’s conclusion that a prisoner’s right to marry was not clearly established when the defendants denied Lockert’s marriage request. 5 .

Mark Rogers, Eric Pelcher and Mark Emigh v. City of Amsterdam, Thomas McQuade and Todd Stark, Mary Ann Smith

303 F.3d 155 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Sep 6, 2002

Qualified Immunity “The doctrine of qualified immunity shields police officers acting in their official capacity from suits for damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 , unless their actions violate clearly-established rights of which … Thus, the district court did not err in concluding that Stark was entitled to qualified immunity as to the claims of Rogers and Emigh. 2.

White v. Lee

227 F.3d 1214 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Sep 27, 2000

Was the Law Clearly Established? 88 Having concluded that the plaintiffs have stated a proper First Amendment claim, we next consider whether the HUD officials are entitled to qualified immunity. … In analyzing a claim of qualified immunity, this court asks two related questions: (1) Was the law governing the officials' conduct clearly established?

Jo Ann Eubanks v. Gary Larson

Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Aug 28, 1997

Qualified immunity shields Sheriff Lawson from liability for civil damages as long as his conduct did not violate Dehart's clearly established constitutional rights. See Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982). … -3- his actions violated clearly established law, then Lawson is not entitled to qualified immunity. See Hummel-Jones v. Strope, 25 F.3d 647, 652 (8th Cir. 1994).

Terebesi v. Torresso

Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Aug 21, 2014

The defendants here allege at least some qualified  immunity defenses over which we may properly  exercise appellate jurisdiction: inter alia, that the relevant  law was not clearly established, that the application of  the … ʺAn officer is not entitled to qualified immunity  on the grounds that the law is not clearly established  every time a novel method is used to inflict injury.ʺ20      It has become commonplace for defendants in excessive

White-Bey v. Griggs

43 F. App'x 792 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 1, 2002

When reviewing a summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity, the court first determines whether the complaint alleges a deprivation of a constitutional right, then determines whether that right was clearly established … In this case, the district court determined that defendant was entitled to qualified immunity because his alleged conduct was not objectively unreasonable in light of the clearly established law at the time, which required

Guillemard-Ginorio v. Contreras-Gomez

161 F. App'x 24 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Dec 13, 2005

1) whether plaintiff's allegations, if true establish a constitutional violation; (2) whether that right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation; and (3) whether a similarly situated reasonable … Nonetheless, Contreras argues the rule is not clearly established, pointing to authority allowing prehearing suspensions of certain property rights in certain circumstances. See Gilbert v.

Schultz v. Sundberg

759 F.2d 714 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Apr 30, 1985

Under the Harlow test, government officials are shielded from liability when "their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known." … In light of this, it would be impossible to say that the defendants' actions in requesting and implementing the Rule 16(e) order violated clearly established rights.

Andrew Neuens v. City of Columbus, Officer Isaac Bridges

303 F.3d 667 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Sep 12, 2002

ANALYSIS Bridges’ interlocutory appeal is properly before us because his claim for qualified immunity was denied by the district court. … respect to the issue of qualified immunity.

Richard Leo Deorle v. Greg Rutherford, Butte County Deputy Sheriff Mick Grey, Butte County Sheriff County of Butte

242 F.3d 1119 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Mar 16, 2001

The Fifth Circuit upheld the jury verdict, applying a separate qualified-immunity test that first determines whether the officer’s use of force violated clearly established law, then inquires whether, on the facts as they … In applying the first part of the traditional qualified-immunity test— whether the law was clearly established— we start with the general proposition that the use of force that is objectively unreasonable is unlawful and

Moss v. United States Secret Service

711 F.3d 941 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Feb 26, 2013

“clearly established” law. … Qualified Immunity Framework “[Q]ualified immunity protects government officials ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which

Montanez v. City of Orlando

678 F. App'x 905 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Feb 2, 2017

However, the doctrine of qualified immunity “offers complete protection for government officials sued in their individual capacities if their conduct ‘does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights … Once “the defendant establishes that he was acting within his discretionary authority, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to show that qualified immunity is not appropriate.” Id.

BARICHELLO v. McDONALD

98 F.3d 948 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Oct 16, 1996

On July 26, 1993, the defendants moved for partial summary judgment on the ground of qualified immunity. … Doe by Doe, 509 U.S. 312, 318 , 113 S.Ct. 2637, 2642 , 125 L.Ed.2d 257 (1993), it is sufficient for the purposes of qualified immunity to conclude that no relevant constitutional right was clearly established. 20 Counts II

Simon v. City of New York

727 F.3d 167 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Aug 16, 2013

Defendants moved for summary judgment arguing, in part, that they were entitled to absolute immunity for the acts of obtaining and executing a material witness warrant, and that in the alternative, they had qualified immunity … In an order entered October 19, 2011, the district court granted defendants’ motion and dismissed the complaint, holding that the individual defendants had absolute immunity or, in the alternative, qualified immunity,

Brown v. City of Tulsa

124 F.4th 1251 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jan 7, 2025

“The doctrine of qualified immunity shields officials from civil liability so long as their conduct ‘does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. … Cir. 2011) (“The [defendant] asserts its qualified immunity, but we are unable to determine without an evidentiary record whether any act it committed in defense of those functions constituted a violation of clearly established

Cornell v. Woods

69 F.3d 1383 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Nov 8, 1995

Qualified Immunity The prison officials claim that the district court committed error by refusing to grant them qualified immunity. This is an issue that we review de novo. See Henderson, 29 F.3d at 467 . … Qualified immunity applies unless the officials’ conduct violates “‘clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’ ” Henderson, 29 F.3d at 467 (quoting Harlow v.

William Bernal v. Sacramento County Sheriff's Department

73 F.4th 678 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jul 7, 2023

Qualified immunity shields law enforcement officers from civil liability under § 1983 “unless the officers violated a clearly established constitutional right.” Monzon v. … Accordingly, William’s right to record police is clearly established and the Deputies are not entitled to qualified immunity.

S.A.A. v. Samantha Geisler

127 F.4th 1133 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Feb 7, 2025

And qualified immunity is a “personal immunity defense[],” Graham, 473 U.S. at 166-67, so a defendant’s declining to raise a qualified immunity defense suggests that the defendant is not on notice of the potential for personal … We stress the importance of doing the qualified immunity analysis early in litigation because those entitled to qualified immunity hold “an entitlement not to stand trial or face the other burdens of litigation

Elvan Moore v. Kevin Pederson

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Sep 16, 2015

But because the law on this point was not clearly established in this Circuit before our decision today, we affirm the district court’s entry of summary judgment on qualified- immunity grounds to Defendant-Appellee Deputy … But since the law was not clearly established on this point when Pederson arrested Moore, the district court did not err when it granted qualified immunity to Pederson and denied summary judgment to Moore.

Walter v. Pike Cty PA

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Sep 18, 2008

violated clearly established law.” … at issue–in the case of qualified immunity, whether that set of facts is “sufficient to establish a violation of a clearly established constitutional right.”