Case law

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.

Angelina Nunes v. Carrie Stephens

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Dec 29, 2020

Therefore, Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity.  NUNES V. … We carefully dodge this issue today by focusing on the clearly- established-law prong of qualified immunity given the dearth of reasoning and guidance in the Gonzalez decision.

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.

Rosario-Diaz v. Diaz-Martinez

Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Apr 24, 1997

If the pretrial rejection of the qualified immunity defense is based on a purely legal ground, such as a finding that the conduct described by the plaintiff, assuming it occurred, transgressed a clearly established right, … Rather, when a court, in denying a motion for summary judgment premised on qualified immunity, determines that certain conduct attributed to a defendant, if proven, will 6 suffice to show a violation of clearly established

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.

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."

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

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.

Tripathy v. McKoy

103 F.4th 106 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · May 29, 2024

The district court dismissed this claim as barred by qualified immunity, finding that SOCTP’s requirement that participants accept responsibility for their misconduct did not violate clearly established law. … “The doctrine of qualified immunity shields officials from civil liability so long as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights.” Mullenix v.

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

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.

Corey Fallen v. Thomas McEnroe

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jan 6, 2025

The dissent responds at the highest level of generality by noting that “the clearly established prong of the qualified immunity analysis” was “raised and argued in the District Court and here.” Dissent at n.5. … Qualified immunity protects more than just constitutional actions by law enforcement officers; it also extends to unconstitutional conduct that has not been clearly established as such. See Pearson, 555 U.S. at 236.

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.

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