Case law

Philip v. Cronin

537 F.3d 26 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Aug 7, 2008

Qualified Immunity Regardless, we have no doubt that Cronin, the sole defendant in this case, is entitled to qualified immunity. … Katz, 533 U.S. 194, 201 (2001) (violation of constitutional right is threshold question in qualified immunity analysis).3 Nonetheless, even if a constitutional right is clearly established, the defendant is

Mellott v. Heemer

161 F.3d 117 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Nov 5, 1998

On appeal, the marshals contend that the district court erred by refusing to grant summary judgment in their favor on grounds of qualified immunity. … The marshals are entitled to qualified immunity if, at the time they acted, they reasonably could have believed that their conduct did not violate the plaintiffs' clearly established constitutional rights.

Rish v. Johnson

131 F.3d 1092 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Dec 18, 1997

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 … that the official maintains his conduct did not violate clearly established law.

Charles W. v. Maul

214 F.3d 350 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jun 5, 2000

Defendants moved to dismiss plaintiffs complaint asserting qualified immunity, a defense that depends upon whether the right plaintiff asserts is so clearly established that defendants should have known it. … But whether qualified immunity applies depends on whether the right violated was clearly established. See Harlow, 457 U.S. at 818 , 102 S.Ct. 2727 .

Back v. Hall

537 F.3d 552 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 11, 2008

But the court denied the defendants’ request for qualified immunity on Back’s political-affiliation claims, holding that Back had adequately alleged a clearly established constitutional violation. … only whether the complaint “adequately alleges the commission of acts that violated clearly established law,” Mitchell v.

New Jersey v. New York

526 U.S. 589 · Supreme Court of the United States · May 17, 1999

Tanner Griggs v. Charley Brewer

841 F.3d 308 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Oct 28, 2016

“The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … Because our analysis is under the defense of qualified immunity, the question is whether Brewer’s conduct was clearly unreasonable in the light of clearly established law.

Huey P. McDuffie v. W.J. Estelle, Jr.

935 F.2d 682 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jul 15, 1991

We therefore hold that Ruiz does not foreclose relitigation of the due process issue via the Committee officials’ qualified immunity plea. 10 (ii) Clearly Established Law — Disciplinary Proceedings Thus, we must look to see … Cannatella, 810 F.2d 1363, 1374 (5th Cir.1987) (qualified immunity accorded to official insofar as conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known

Mondrea Vinning-El v. Scott Long, Correctional Officer, David Reid, Correctional Officer, and John Doe, Sergeant and Lieutenant

482 F.3d 923 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Mar 27, 2007

immunity, and Vinning-El appeals. … We agree with their concession since it was clearly established well before 2001 that the conditions Vinning-El describes, if true, deprived him of the “minimal civilized measure of life’s necessities.” See Rhodes v.

Roe v. Sherry

91 F.3d 1270 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jul 31, 1996

He also contends the officers are not entitled to qualified immunity. DISCUSSION A. … A fundamental inquiry in a qualified immunity analysis is “whether the plaintiff has asserted a violation of a constitutional right at all.” Siegert v.

Sylvan Plowright v. Miami Dade County

102 F.4th 1358 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jun 5, 2024

The district court dismissed Plowright’s complaint, con- cluding among other things that Cordova was entitled to qualified immunity because he did not violate any clearly established right when he … The right in question was clearly established. Plausibly alleging a constitutional violation is insufficient on its own to overcome qualified immunity.

A. D. v. State of Calif. Highway Patrol

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Apr 3, 2013

The Court then rejected the notion that the law, defined at such a level of generality, was “clearly established” for qualified immunity purposes. … Markgraf is not entitled to qualified immunity, because Plaintiffs have shown that he violated the foregoing clearly established law.

Gann v. Cline

519 F.3d 1090 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Mar 11, 2008

“The doctrine of qualified immunity shields public officials . . . from damages actions unless their conduct was unreasonable in light of clearly established law.” Elder v. Holloway, 510 U.S. 510, 512 (1994). … do, we examine whether the right was clearly established.

Sam Thurmond, Sr. v. Gary Andrews

972 F.3d 1007 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Aug 28, 2020

A grant of qualified immunity is inappropriate, absent an obvious violation, if the right was not clearly established. … The right in question, even if properly defined, was not clearly established. As such, a grant of qualified immunity was appropriate.

Acierno v. Cloutier

40 F.3d 597 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Oct 18, 1994

immunity is to examine whether the plaintiff has "allege[d] the violation of a clearly established constitutional right." … In a recent discussion of the "clearly established" right aspect of the qualified immunity determination, we stated: 75 The right an official is alleged to have violated must have been "clearly established" in a "particularized

Penthouse International, Ltd. v. Edwin A. Meese, Iii, Attorney General of the United States

939 F.2d 1011 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Sep 24, 1991

did not violate any clearly-established First Amendment right. … If it does not — or at least if the right is not clearly established — the government’s motive is irrelevant.

George Owens v. Matthew J. Frank

394 F.3d 490 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jan 6, 2005

, but ‘an unreasonable application’ of clearly established federal law, or based on ‘an unreasonable determination of the facts’ (emphasis added).”); Dixon v. … Section 2254(d)(1) provides that habeas relief shall not be afforded unless a state court reached a result "that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined

Robert Jackson v. Richard J. Elrod

881 F.2d 441 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Aug 7, 1989

Their conduct clearly violated the law established in Bell , therefore the doctrine of qualified immunity does not protect them from liability for damages for the book rejections.” Jackson v. … The defendants here claim qualified immunity because the case law did not clearly establish that it was a denial of a pretrial detainee’s First Amendment rights to ban his receipt of all hard-back books, regardless of the

Travis Rickey Childress, Slaton Jenkins Childress, Gary Dennis Childress v. Small Business Administration, A.G. McClearen and Clyde Rice, Jr.

825 F.2d 1550 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 31, 1987

We nonetheless conclude that appellants were entitled to qualified immunity for their actions because they did not act to deny the Childresses this property interest in violation of a clearly-established constitutional norm … “Unless the plaintiff’s allegations state a claim of violation of clearly established law, a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal before the commencement of discovery.” Id. at 2816.

Skoog v. County of Clackamas

469 F.3d 1221 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Nov 20, 2006

9 If the answer is no, the officer is entitled to qualified immunity. … At some future point, this right will become clearly established in this Circuit.