Case law

Hughes v. Garcia

100 F.4th 611 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · May 3, 2024

If established, such misstatements constitute a clearly established Fourth Amendment violation under Franks v. Delaware. … That violation has been clearly established since Franks.

Gonzalez v. Trevino

42 F.4th 487 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jul 29, 2022

qualified immunity defense with equal specificity.” … Appellants assert a defense of qualified immunity.

General Electric Co. v. United States

813 F.2d 1273 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Mar 12, 1987

ignores *1277 the well-established distinction between the executive official’s absolute immunity from common-law tort liability, and qualified immunity from liability for constitutional torts. … with constitutional violations enjoy only a “qualified immunity” from damage liability.

Patrick McMorrow v. Elaine Little

103 F.3d 704 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jan 8, 1997

They argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity because the constitutional right that McMorrow claims they violated was not clearly established. … Again we conclude that the officials are entitled to qualified immunity because it was not clearly established that this conduct was unconstitutional.

Manigault v. King

339 F. App'x 229 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jul 13, 2009

Qualified immunity shields government officials from civil damages liability “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. … Katz, we typically resolve qualified immunity claims under a two-step test, deciding (1) whether facts alleged or shown make out the violation of a constitutional right, and (2) if so, whether that right was clearly established

Debra Horta v. Charles B. Sullivan

4 F.3d 2 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Aug 31, 1993

Appellant argues that it had been clearly established in Tennessee v. … Because Sullivan did not violate a clearly established right of appellant’s, the district court correctly found that he was entitled to qualified immunity from a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 .

C. B. v. City of Sonora

730 F.3d 816 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Sep 12, 2013

Qualified Immunity We must also decide whether McIntosh and Prock are entitled to qualified immunity on the federal claims. … Qualified immunity analysis consists of two steps: (1) whether the facts the plaintiff alleges make out a violation of a constitutional right; and (2) whether that right was clearly established at the time the defendant acted

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

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

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.