Case law

Bennett v. Schroeder

99 F. App'x 707 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · May 27, 2004

Second, we must determine whether the right violated was clearly established. Id. at 201. … If “a reasonable officer could have believed” that his conduct was lawful “in light of clearly established law and the information the ... officer[ ] possessed,” then qualified immunity should be granted to the police officer

Vieira v. Presley

988 F.2d 850 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Mar 17, 1993

The district court 1 ruled that the officials were entitled to qualified immunity. … To be entitled to qualified immunity, an official's conduct must be objectively reasonable with reference to clearly established law. Davis v.

Gurik v. Mitchell

26 F. App'x 500 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jan 15, 2002

In civil suits for money damages, government officials acting in their official capacity are entitled to qualified immunity for discretionary acts that do “not violate clearly established [federal] statutory or constitutional … In regard to the second part of the qualified immunity analysis, the Supreme Court stated that “[t]he relevant, dispositive inquiry in determining whether a right is clearly established is whether it would be clear to a reasonable

Garvin v. Wheeler

304 F.3d 628 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Aug 28, 2002

Saucier was not a hallmark reformulation of the qualified immunity analysis. … Instead, Saucier stressed that a trial court must engage in the two-part qualified immunity analysis (asking first whether a constitutional right was violated and second whether that right was clearly established) before

Michael P. Brannon, Psy. D. v. Howard Finklestein

754 F.3d 1269 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jun 18, 2014

“Qualified immunity provides protection for government officials performing discretionary functions and sued in their individual capacities as long as their conduct violates no clearly established statutory or constitutional … Put another way, the official is entitled to such immunity unless he both (1) violates clearly established law and (2) was aware or reasonably should have been aware that he was doing it.

Edward Joseph X. Chapman v. George W. Pickett, Warden, U.S. Penitentiary, Marion, Defendants

801 F.2d 912 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Sep 25, 1986

In 1978, this circuit rejected defendants’ qualified immunity argument and concluded: There can be no serious contention with the fact that the right to be free from disproportionate punishment has long been ‘clearly established … That case articulated an objective standard for determining qualified immunity.

Smith Ex Rel. Kolski v. City of Brooklyn Park

757 F.3d 765 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jul 3, 2014

"A government official is entitled to qualified immunity from liability in a § 1983 action unless the official's conduct violates a clearly established constitutional or statutory right of which a reasonable person would … (2) whether that right was clearly established at the time of the defendant's alleged misconduct."

Elaine Tucker v. Marvin Evans

276 F.3d 999 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jan 14, 2002

The prison employees are entitled to qualified immunity unless they violated Tucker's "clearly established" constitutional rights. Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982). … There was no violation of clearly established law in the training of Daniels, and thus the claim is without merit. III.

Williams v. Pollard

44 F.3d 433 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Mar 9, 1995

In order to survive a motion for summary judgment based on qualified immunity, plaintiffs must effectively pass two hurdles: 8 First, the allegations must state a claim of the violation of clearly established law. … Pollard is, therefore, entitled to qualified immunity as a matter of law.

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.

Williams v. McCallin

439 F. App'x 707 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Sep 7, 2011

The defendants argue they are entitled to qualified immunity because Mr. Williams cannot point to any constitutional violation, and thus, the law was not clearly established. … “The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials from liability for civil damages -5- insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or

Dr. David Zar v. South Dakota Board Of Examiners Of Psychologists

976 F.2d 459 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Oct 9, 1992

for constitutional violations if the conduct " 'was objectively reasonable as measured by clearly established law.' " Powell v. … "A necessary concomitant to the determination of whether the constitutional right asserted by plaintiff is 'clearly established' at the time the defendant acted is the determination of whether the plaintiff asserted a violation

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.

Southerland v. City of New York

652 F.3d 209 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jun 10, 2011

Qualified Immunity 2 Qualified immunity shields public officials from 3 liability "insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly 4 established statutory or constitutional rights of which a 5 … "In general, public officials are entitled 7 to qualified immunity if (1) their conduct does not violate 8 clearly established constitutional rights, or (2) it was 9 objectively reasonable for them to believe

Sabir v. Williams

Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Oct 28, 2022

Qualified Immunity A. … the right is clearly established.

Morse v. Fusto

Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Sep 11, 2015

We conclude that the  4  defendants were not entitled to qualified immunity because the plaintiffʹs  5  constitutional rights were violated and the law giving rise to the violation was  6  clearly established  … This right was,  10  moreover, clearly established at the time of the defendantsʹ conduct.  The  11  defendants are therefore not entitled to qualified immunity.  

The Gehl Group v. Koby

63 F.3d 1528 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Aug 16, 1995

The individual defendants' qualified immunity shields them from liability if their actions did not "violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known." … In analyzing qualified immunity claims, we first ask if a plaintiff has asserted the violation of a constitutional right at all, and then assess whether that right was clearly established at the time of a defendant's actions

Torcivia v. Suffolk County, New York

17 F.4th 342 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Nov 9, 2021

them based on state qualified immunity. … “clearly established” when it was allegedly violated.

Albert Burnham v. Lawrence Ianni

119 F.3d 668 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jul 11, 1997

Long, 72 F.3d 70, 73 (8th Cir. 1995), “[t]his court has taken a broad view of what constitutes ‘clearly established law’ for the purposes of a qualified immunity inquiry.” … fact-intensive balancing test, it can rarely be considered 'clearly established' for purposes of the Harlow qualified immunity standard."21 Id. at 916 (emphasis added) (quoted in Grantham v.

Watson v. University Of Utah Medical Center

75 F.3d 569 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jan 19, 1996

Thus, defendants are entitled to qualified immunity as to this claim. … Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity on plaintiff's liberty claim.