Case law

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."

Monfils v. Taylor

165 F.3d 511 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Dec 23, 1998

Accordingly, the issue before us is a legal one: whether Taylor’s conduct violates a constitutional right which was clearly established in 1992. … Taylor is not and never was entitled to qualified immunity against this claim.

U.S. Chamber of Commerce v. City of Seattle

890 F.3d 769 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · May 11, 2018

We held that “a county board of health had clearly intended to displace competition by establishing a monopoly in the market of dispatching air ambulances in the county, and that state action immunity therefore shielded this … Clearly, it is not.

Jonathan Catlin v. City of Wheaton

Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jul 21, 2009

Qualified immunity protects public officials from liability for damages if their actions did not violate clearly established rights of which a reasonable person would have known. Harlow v. … To overcome qualified immunity, a plaintiff must show that (1) the facts make out a violation of the plain- tiff’s federal rights, and (2) the right at issue was clearly established at the time of the defendant’s alleged

Vaughn v. United States Small Business Administration

82 F.3d 684 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 23, 1996

. -, 115 S.Ct. 2151 , 132 L.Ed.2d 238 (1995), that appeal from the denial of a motion to dismiss or a motion for summary judgment on grounds of qualified immunity is impermissible when the issue turns on a dispute of fact … They did not argue that beating the plaintiff would not have violated, a clearly established right of the plaintiff.

Daniel Allen v. United States

83 F.4th 564 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Oct 3, 2023

Why require Congress to speak clearly when it waives sovereign immunity? Because it is rarely the “legislative intention” to do so. United States v. Hoar, 26 F. Cas. 329, 330 (Story, Circuit Justice, C.C.D. … But see id. at 498 (Thomas, J., dissenting) (concluding that the “well-established rationale for construing a waiver in favor of the sovereign’s immunity . . . applies with equal force to the construction of an exception

Vance v. Rumsfeld

653 F.3d 591 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Aug 8, 2011

The qualified immunity doctrine protects government officials “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not .violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights *606 of which a reasonable … The Rights Were Clearly Established To decide qualified immunity, we turn next to whether the alleged rights were clearly established.

Marcus v. McCollum

394 F.3d 813 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Dec 30, 2004

On the present record, the initial qualified-immunity inquiry is readily resolved. … Although a ruling on qualified immunity should normally occur early in proceedings, Harlow v.

Sanchez v. Canales

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jul 30, 2009

It then considered whether the Officers could “conduct the probation search without sus- picion of wrongdoing,” granting immunity because it had not been clearly established “what level of suspicion, if any, was required … established one way or another—denied qualified immunity on the detention claim.

Adam Moore v. Kurt Indehar

Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Feb 1, 2008

However, under the doctrine of qualified immunity, a police officer is entitled to dismissal of such an action if his “conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … Moore has clearly not shouldered this burden. Officer Indehar is entitled to qualified immunity.

Joseph H. Levenstein v. Bernard Salafsky, Patricia A. Gill, and David C. Broski

414 F.3d 767 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jul 11, 2005

The qualified immunity ruling spelled the end of his personal capacity claims for damages. … If and only if so, then the court must determine whether the right was clearly established in the light of the *773 specific context of the case. Id.

Barnacascel v. State of Montana Department of Corrections

103 F. App'x 195 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jun 25, 2004

Because Barnacascel’s right to release was not clearly established until shortly before his actual release from prison, we affirm the district court’s holding that appellees were entitled to qualified immunity on Barnacascel … Furthermore, even if Barnacascel had established facts showing the violation of a constitutional right, appellees would still be entitled to qualified immunity because Barnacascel cannot show that his rights were clearly

Randy Cole v. Michael Hunter

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Aug 21, 2019

Garner does not formulate “clearly established law” with the degree of specificity required by the Supreme Court’s decisions on qualified immunity. … Ct. at 1776 (“Qualified immunity is no immunity at all if ‘clearly established’ law can simply be defined as the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures.”); Wilson v.

Kruse ex rel. Kanoa v. Hawai'i

68 F.3d 331 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Oct 12, 1995

When a public official asserts qualified immunity from liability in a § 1983 action, we must determine whether (1) the law governing the official’s conduct was clearly established and (2) whether under that law, an official … Clearly Established Right While the right the official is alleged to have violated must have been “clearly established” in a “particularized” sense, “this is not to say that an official action is protected by qualified immunity

Thomas v. Hungerford

23 F.3d 1450 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · May 11, 1994

Griss appeals from the district court’s denial of his motion for summary judgment 1 on the basis of qualified immunity and absolute witness immunity. We reverse and remand. I. … Qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions from liability for civil damages unless their conduct violates “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable

Bikachi Amisi v. Roy Townsend, Jr.

Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Feb 22, 2024

“Qualified immunity protects officers who commit constitutional violations but who, in light of clearly established law, could reasonably believe that their actions were lawful.” Henry v. … of qualified immunity.

Haley v. Donovan

250 F. App'x 202 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Sep 27, 2007

At the time in 2001 and 2002 when Haley was disciplined for refusing to cut his hair, however, it was not yet clearly established that the defendants’ conduct violated RLUIPA. … The defendants were entitled to qualified immunity. We reject Haley’s argument that qualified immunity applies only to constitutional, not statutory rights. See Harlow v.

Nadine Hemminghaus v. State of Missouri

756 F.3d 1100 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jul 1, 2014

“The second prong of the qualified-immunity analysis asks whether the right in question was ‘clearly established’ at the time of the violation.” Tolan, 572 U.S. at ___, 134 S. Ct. at 1866 (quoting Hope v. … Hemminghaus does not cite 12 This is not to say Pickering balancing never allows for clearly established law in the qualified immunity analysis.

Laughlin v. Olszewski,et al

102 F.3d 190 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Dec 30, 1996

An official's conduct is protected by qualified immunity if it was objectively reasonable in light of legal rules that were clearly established at the time of action. Hale v. Townley, 45 F.3d 914, 919 (5th Cir.1995). … The threshold inquiry in examining a defendant's claim of qualified immunity is a purely legal one—whether the plaintiff "allege[d] the violation of a clearly established constitutional right." Siegert v.

William J. Crosby v. Monroe County

394 F.3d 1328 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Dec 28, 2004

To be eligible for qualified immunity, the official must first establish that he was performing a “discretionary function” at the time the alleged violation of federal law occurred. Id. at 1263–64. … the defendant violated was “clearly established” at the time he did it.