Case law

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."

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

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.

Hartley v. Fine

780 F.2d 1383 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Dec 31, 1985

Russell’s assertions of absolute immunity clearly encompassed the lesser degree of qualified immunity as well. … as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”

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

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.

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.”

Spears Ex Rel. Estate of McCargo v. Ruth

589 F.3d 249 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Dec 10, 2009

The defendants timely filed motions for summary judgment asserting various defenses including qualified immunity. … Government officials are immune from civil liability unless, in the course of performing their discretionary functions, they violate the plaintiffs clearly established constitutional rights. See Hills v.

Campbell v. United States

365 U.S. 85 · Supreme Court of the United States · Jan 23, 1961

If extrinsic evidence established this, the report would be producible under subsection (e)(2). Palermo v. United States, at 351-352. … the Government in safeguarding government papers from disclosure, and the interest of the accused in having the Government produce “statements” which the statute requires to be produced. *96 The circumstances of this case clearly

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.

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.

John James Tribell v. David G. Mills, Warden Norma Jean Eggers Gordon R. Miler, Counselor, Jim Morrow, Counselor Donley Shillings, Counselor

25 F.3d 1050 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 1, 1994

Accordingly, we must now consider the appellants' qualified immunity claim. 3 Qualified Immunity 27 In Rich v. … for more than twenty days without a hearing (in violation of rights clearly established by Hewitt ), the appellants are not immune from Tribell's 42 U.S.C.

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.

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.

Albert Burnham v. Lawrence Ianni

98 F.3d 1007 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Oct 16, 1996

, that Ianni violated plaintiffs’ clearly established First Amendment rights. … Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 530 , 105 S.Ct. 2806, 2817-18 , 86 L.Ed.2d 411 (1985) (interlocutory appellate jurisdiction exists where qualified immunity issue involves application of “clearly established” law to a given set of

Charles Reid, an Individual Traci Read, an Individual, -Appellees v. Dale Wren, Bill Hamby, and Pat Versteeg

57 F.3d 1081 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jun 8, 1995

"In evaluating defendants' qualified immunity claims, we must first determine whether plaintiff's allegations, if true, state a claim for a violation of a constitutional right that was clearly established when defendant acted … the claim of qualified immunity."

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

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

Jones v. Buchanan

325 F.3d 520 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Apr 15, 2003

"[T]he next, sequential step is to ask whether the right was clearly established" at the time of the events at issue. Id. … If not, the qualified immunity doctrine still provides a defendant officer with immunity from suit.