Case law

Groten v. California

251 F.3d 844 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jun 1, 2001

Qualified Immunity 37 The district court also determined that the state officials, in their individual capacity, were entitled to qualified immunity. … . 26 38 Government officials are given qualified immunity "insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known." 27 Although the Fourteenth

Michael Lacey v. Joseph Arpaio

693 F.3d 896 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Aug 29, 2012

Only when an officer’s conduct violates a clearly established constitutional right — when the officer should have known he was violating the Constitution — does he forfeit qualified immunity. … We have no difficulty concluding that, if the allegations are proven, Wilenchik violated Lacey’s clearly established First Amendment rights. Wilenchik is therefore not entitled to qualified immunity- *918 b.

Sappington v. Bartee

195 F.3d 234 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Nov 24, 1999

We agree with him that the summary judgment record establishes his entitlement to qualified immunity, and accordingly reverse and render judgment in his favor. 1 District Judge of the Eastern District … Qualified immunity attaches to individual defendants’ actions “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v.

Savino v. the City of New York

331 F.3d 63 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · May 22, 2003

DISCUSSION 23 It is well established that "[w]e review de novo a district court's denial of summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds." Kinzer v. … County of Suffolk, 316 F.3d 368, 385 (2d Cir.2003) (stating that an officer is entitled to immunity from suit if his conduct did not violate plaintiff's clearly established rights). B.

United States v. Hunt

521 F.3d 636 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 11, 2008

sufficient evidence to conclude that Hunt intentionally contributed to the commission of health care fraud by causing claims to be submitted on the false pretenses that they had been determined to be medically necessary by a qualified … And a factual determination is necessarily clearly erroneous where a jury has previously found to the contrary beyond a reasonable doubt.

Anne Francisco v. Tom Villmer

108 F.4th 1072 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jul 26, 2024

“Whether a given set of facts entitles the official to summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds is a question of law. … To defeat the protection of qualified immunity, the plaintiff must (1) assert a violation of a constitutional or statutory right, (2) that was “clearly established” at the time of the violation, and (3) that a “reasonable

Janelle Perez v. City of Roseville

926 F.3d 511 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · May 21, 2019

We conclude that the individual defendants are entitled to qualified immunity on Perez’s first claim because it is not clearly established that a probationary 6 PEREZ V. … In addressing the second prong of the qualified immunity test—whether there is a violation of clearly established law—courts “do[] not require a case directly on point for a right to be clearly established, [but] existing

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

Frank Snider, III v. Matthew Peters

Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · May 30, 2014

Qualified immunity shields government officials from liability and the burdens of litigation in a § 1983 action unless the official's conduct violates a clearly established constitutional or statutory right of which a reasonable … ; and (2) the right was clearly established at the time of the deprivation."

Boyd v. McNamara

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jul 24, 2023

Because Johnson has asserted qualified immunity, Boyd must show the violation of a constitutional right and that “the ‘right at issue was “clearly established” at the time of [the] alleged misconduct.’” … C Defendants also assert in a footnote that “it is not clear” whether our precedents, as opposed to the Supreme Court’s, can clearly establish the law for purposes of qualified immunity.

Washington v. Normandy Fire Protection District

272 F.3d 522 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Nov 5, 2001

The next inquiry, then, is to determine if the right was clearly established. Id. … “This court has . . . taken a broad view of what constitutes ‘clearly established law’ for the purposes of a qualified immunity inquiry . . . .” Sexton, 210 F.3d at 909 (quoting Boswell v.

Scoby v. Neal

981 F.2d 286 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Dec 8, 1992

established at the time. … Therefore both Circuits upheld qualified immunity.

Ronnie McCoy Lori McCoy v. City of Monticello Harold West, Mayor Monticello Police Department Sam Norris Ken Ouelette

411 F.3d 920 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jun 16, 2005

Earlier, Officer Ouel-ette appealed the district court’s denial of qualified immunity. Concluding no unreasonable seizure had occurred, we reversed, *922 holding Officer Ouelette was entitled to qualified immunity. … immunity."

Serna v. Colorado Department of Corrections

455 F.3d 1146 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jul 26, 2006

Since the court’s order raised questions of qualified immunity, Gasko appealed. … immunity defense and “the issue appealed concern[s] . . . whether or not certain given facts showed a violation of ‘clearly established’ law.”

Rucker v. Hampton

49 F. App'x 806 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Oct 18, 2002

immunity for discretionary acts unless their conduct violated “clearly established [federal] statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … “If no constitutional right would have been violated were the allegations established, there is no necessity for further inquiries concerning qualified immunity.” Id.

Hayek v. City Of St. Paul

488 F.3d 1049 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jun 29, 2007

"In addressing an officer's claimed entitlement to qualified immunity, the court must first determine whether the allegations amount to a constitutional violation, and then, whether that right was clearly established." … "Qualified immunity is not just a defense to liability, it constitutes immunity from suit." Hanig v. Lee, 415 F.3d 822, 824 (8th Cir.2005).

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.

David Stratta v. Billy Harris

961 F.3d 340 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · May 29, 2020

BVGCD asserted failure to state a claim because Fazzino’s property interest in groundwater is not “clearly established,” his claims against the Directors are barred by qualified immunity, and Stratta’s right to speak, as … The district court discussed this claim only in terms of qualified immunity for the Board, and in that respect held that Fazzino’s right to equal protection, if any, was not clearly established because GCDs have broad discretionary

Kwame Ajamu v. City of Cleveland

925 F.3d 793 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · May 20, 2019

Qualified immunity does not apply if (1) “on the plaintiff’s facts,” a constitutional violation occurred, and (2) the alleged violation was of “clearly established constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would … At issue in this appeal is whether, in 1975, the constitutional rights allegedly violated by Stoiker were sufficiently clearly established to deprive him of the protection of qualified immunity.

Phillips v. Hust

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Dec 2, 2009

Sec- ond, assuming a constitutional violation, is Hust nevertheless entitled to qualified immunity because the relevant constitu- tional right was not “clearly established” at the time she acted? … C [8] A state officer is not protected by qualified immunity where he or she has violated a clearly established constitu- tional right.