Case law

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.

Kenyon v. Edwards

462 F.3d 802 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Sep 7, 2006

We find that Edwards is entitled to summary judgment based on qualified immunity. A. The Qualified Immunity Analysis 6 Saucier provides the marching orders for courts considering qualified immunity claims. … clearly established.

United States v. Hunt

521 F.3d 636 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 11, 2008

sufficient evidence to conclude that Hunt intentionally contributed to the commission of health care fraud by causing claims to be submitted on the false pretenses that they had been determined to be medically necessary by a qualified … And a factual determination is necessarily clearly erroneous where a jury has previously found to the contrary beyond a reasonable doubt.

Vance v. Wade

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Nov 17, 2008

“According to the doctrine of qualified immunity, ‘government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established … the defendant did acts that violated clearly established rights.”

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.

Lonnie Elbert Fielder v. August H. Bosshard

590 F.2d 105 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Feb 21, 1979

In order to negate the existence of the official’s immunity, the plaintiff must prove either that the official violated his clearly established constitutional rights or that the official acted “with ‘malicious intention’ … of the qualified immunity.

Schilcher v. University of Arkansas

387 F.3d 959 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Nov 5, 2004

immunity because the summary judgment record showed no violation of her clearly established rights. … An immediate appeal from the denial of qualified immunity, such as this one, is quite limited in scope.

Jon Hyde v. City of Wilcox

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jan 6, 2022

To determine whether an officer enjoys qualified immunity, the court asks, in the order it chooses, (i) whether the alleged misconduct violated a constitutional right and (ii) whether the right was clearly established at … Pralgo and Callahan-English violated clearly established law.

Rivera-Torres v. Ortiz-Velez

341 F.3d 86 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Aug 26, 2003

the district court's decision to deny qualified immunity. … Following the Seventh Circuit's lead, the Sixth, Ninth, and Tenth circuits established similar certification procedures to address interlocutory appeals challenging the denial of qualified immunity ("Forsyth appeals").

Carepartners LLC, Et v. Lashway

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Sep 24, 2008

If the right was not clearly established at the time of the violation, the official is entitled to qualified immunity.6 Id. 5 We note that Pearson v. Callahan, 128 S. … Therefore, the First Amendment rights advanced by CarePartners were clearly established for the purpose of evaluating the State employees’ qualified immunity defense.

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.

Shahryar Gilani v. John Matthews

843 F.3d 342 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Dec 8, 2016

It shields officers from liability “unless [their] conduct violates a clearly established constitutional or statutory right of which a reasonable person would have known.” Shekleton v. … To evaluate a claim of qualified immunity, we engage in a two-pronged inquiry: “(1) whether the facts shown by the plaintiff make out a violation of a constitutional or statutory right, and (2) whether that right was clearly

Dorothy Chappell v. City of Cleveland

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Nov 4, 2009

Qualified immunity shields government officials from liability for civil damages if their actions did not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. … Page 7 was violated or that the right was clearly established, she will have failed to carry her burden.

Thacker v. City Of Columbus

328 F.3d 244 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 30, 2003

Qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … we have concluded that no constitutional violations occurred in this case, even assuming that such a violation did occur, defendants would be entitled to qualified immunity because they did not violate any 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

Bryant v. Small

48 F. App'x 702 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Oct 16, 2002

MEMORANDUM ** Small and various state officers appeal the denial of their motion for summary judgment based on qualified immunity. We reverse. … We then determine whether the constitutional right was clearly established and whether a reasonable officer would have understood that he was violating that right. Saucier v.

Weimer v. Schraeder

952 F.2d 336 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Dec 17, 1991

The burden rests on Plaintiffs to prove that there was a clearly established law. Hilliard v. … Although the Supreme Court recognized that constitutional rights are clearly established, the test of qualified immunity cannot be applied at “this level of generality.” Anderson, 483 U.S. at 639 , 107 S.Ct. at 3038 .

Kelly v. Bender

23 F.3d 1328 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · May 4, 1994

established rights. … Thus, the officers were entitled to qualified immunity on this claim. 10 Kelly argues that the affidavit of Bob Holmes, which Kelly mistakenly did not file with the district court, established disputed facts regarding whether

Vogt v. City of Hays

844 F.3d 1235 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jan 4, 2017

Albuquerque, 813 F.3d 912 , 929 n.9 (10th Cir. 2015) (“A circuit split will not satisfy the clearly established prong of qualified immunity.”). … But qualified immunity protects officers from liability when the misconduct did not violate a clearly established right. See pp. 1246-47, above.

Asociación De Subscripción Conjunta Del Seguro De Responsabilidad Obligatorio v. Juan A. Flores Galarza

484 F.3d 1 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Apr 18, 2007

Second Prong: Constitutional Right was "Clearly Established" at Time of Violation 96 "The second question [of the qualified immunity analysis] deals with fair warning; it asks whether the law was clearly established at the … The qualified immunity inquiry recognizes that "[i]t is not always evident at the time an official takes an action that a clearly established right is involved.