Case law

Strand v. Minchuk

908 F.3d 300 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Nov 8, 2018

For the law to be clearly established - the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis - the "existing precedent must have placed the statutory or constitutional question beyond debate." … This same factual dispute also prevents us from concluding, as Officer Minchuk urges, that Strand's clearly established constitutional rights were not violated, the second prong of the qualified immunity inquiry.

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.

Joe Baird v. John Renbarger

Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Aug 3, 2009

If it finds a violation, it then asks whether the right was clearly established at the time the official acted. … We therefore proceed to the second step of the qualified- immunity inquiry and ask whether the right at issue was clearly established: [T]he right the official is alleged to have violated must have been “clearly established

Nelson v. Shuffman

603 F.3d 439 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · May 7, 2010

Each of the defendants now appeals the district court's denial of summary judgment based on qualified immunity. … Government officials are generally afforded qualified immunity under section 1983 when performing discretionary functions unless their conduct violates clearly established law. Id. (citing Harlow v.

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."

Bailey v. Board Of County Commissioners Of Alachua County

956 F.2d 1112 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Mar 31, 1992

To defeat a qualified immunity defense, Bailey was required to show that the defendants violated a clearly established statutory or constitutional right of which a reasonable person would have known. Mitchell v. … The district court reasoned that the law became "clearly established" on that date; thus, Caldwell and Hayes were not entitled to summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity.

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).

Vizbaras v. Prieber

761 F.2d 1013 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · May 14, 1985

They quote Harlow for the proposition that “[i]f the law was clearly established, the immunity defense ordinarily should fail, since a reasonably competent public official should know the law governing his conduct.” … With respect to the qualified immunity issues, the defendants contend that the Vizbarases did not preserve these claims for review.

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.

97 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 5270, 97 Daily Journal D.A.R. 8559 Jay Ram v. Winona Rubin, in Her Capacity as Director of the Department of Human Services, State of Hawai'i, and William Silva, Jay Ram v. Winona Rubin, in Her Capacity as Director of the Department of Human Services County of Hawaii, a Municipal Corporation William Silva Elsie Kamahele, John Does 1-10 Jane Does 1-10 Doe Corporations 1-10 Doe Partnership 1-10 Doe Joint Ventures 1-10 and Doe Governmental Entities 1-10

118 F.3d 1306 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jul 2, 1997

suit under the doctrine of qualified immunity. … When an official asserts qualified immunity, we apply a two-part analysis: "1) Was the law governing the official's conduct clearly established?

Gray, William T. v. Poole, Theisha

275 F.3d 1113 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jan 8, 2002

Under this form of immunity, government officials are not subject to damages liability for the performance of their discretionary functions when "their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … These functions are subject to qualified, not abso- lute, immunity. In Malley v.

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.

Richard Kalish v. Liberty Mutual/liberty Life Assurance Company of Boston

419 F.3d 501 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 18, 2005

Jacobs, Willie v. City of Chicago

215 F.3d 758 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jun 1, 2000

If the rights were not clearly established, then the official is immune from suit and the claim is dismissed. See Richardson v. McKnight, 521 U.S. 399, 403 , 117 S.Ct. 2100 , 138 L.Ed.2d 540 (1997). … Clearly Established Law We now consider whether the Defendant Officers’ conduct violated clearly established law. *771 At the time the search in this case was conducted, it was clearly established that a warrant is fatally

Jenkins v. City Of New York

478 F.3d 76 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Feb 6, 2007

officer is entitled to qualified immunity where "(1) his conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known, or (2) it was `objectively reasonable … Allen, 950 F.2d 338, 341 (6th Cir.1991) (denying qualified immunity where state law claims were not used to establish any violation of federal law); Samuel v.

Thelma Hall v. Ron Hopkins

Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Dec 21, 2000

-3-  "Qualified immunity shields government officials from suit unless their conduct violated a clearly established constitutional or statutory right of which a reasonable … In response, Hopkins maintains that he is entitled to qualified immunity because, once an employer engages the Pickering balancing test, the right cannot be clearly established.

Thomas Louden v. City of Minneapolis

Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Nov 28, 2000

Counsel has not cited any case in support of this theory, and the appellees argue that Perry is protected by qualified immunity because the law was not clearly established as to when immediate access to medical equipment … Qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions from liability if “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would

Duffy v. Riveland

98 F.3d 447 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Oct 11, 1996

The Supreme Court has established a three-part test for Article III standing. … immunity.

Gentry v. Lowndes County MS

337 F.3d 481 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jul 3, 2003

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity protects government officials performing discretionary functions from liability as long as their conduct does not violate … “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”

Jenkins v. City of New York

478 F.3d 76 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Feb 6, 2007

Under federal law, a police officer is entitled to qualified immunity where “(1) his conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known, or (2) it … Allen, 950 F.2d 338, 341 (6th Cir.1991) (denying qualified immunity where state law claims were not used to establish any violation of federal law); Samuel v.