Case law

Rosemary Wimbley v. Mark Cashion

Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Dec 3, 2009

The second question is “whether the right was clearly established.” Id. The order of the Saucier inquiry is no longer mandatory, but often beneficial. Pearson v. … Cashion is not entitled to qualified immunity under part one of the Saucier inquiry. B. The second Saucier inquiry is whether the right was clearly established.

John Does 1-5 v. Gretchen Whitmer

69 F.4th 300 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · May 30, 2023

; and (4) the defendants were not entitled to qualified immunity as to the plaintiffs’ timely Ex Post Facto Clause claims, but were entitled to qualified immunity as to any First and Fourteenth Amendment violations that were … not clearly established.3 We review grants of motions to dismiss de novo.

Tremblay v. McClellan

350 F.3d 195 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Nov 20, 2003

Qualified Immunity Under § 1983 Our review of the district court's denial of summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds is de novo. Valente v. … on qualified immunity and for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Garcia v. Johnson

64 F.3d 669 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Aug 18, 1995

DISCUSSION Qualified Immunity 26 The doctrine of qualified immunity "protects public officials from individual liability in a 1983 action unless the officials violated 'clearly established ... constitutional rights of which … Garcia's clearly established constitutional rights under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments. 34 Mr.

Broderick v. Roache

Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Jun 23, 1993

not clearly established at the time of the complained of acts). … Intent and Qualified Immunity A.

Peter Evans v. City of Zebulon, Georgia

407 F.3d 1272 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · May 9, 2005

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity is an affirmative defense available to public officers acting within the scope of their discretionary authority. Harbert Int’l Inc. v. … When case law is needed, only cases from the Supreme Court, our Circuit or the highest court of the pertinent state clearly establish the law in the Circuit for qualified immunity analysis. Marsh, 268 F.3d at 1033 n. 10.

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.

Dunn, Natasha A. v. City of Elgin

347 F.3d 641 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Oct 20, 2003

However, we also find that the Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity because the unconstitutional nature of their actions was not clearly established prior to this case. … Qualified immunity protects govern- mental officers performing discretionary functions “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statu- tory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would

Sharrar v. Felsing

128 F.3d 810 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Oct 24, 1997

We thus hold, following the Supreme Court’s decision in Hunter , that in deciding whether defendant officers are entitled to qualified immunity it is not only the evidence of “clearly established law” that is for the court … To prevail on their qualified immunity claim, — a claim not reached by the district court — defendants must show that their conduct did not violate a clearly established constitutional right of which a reasonable officer

Joshua Clay v. Michael Emmi

797 F.3d 364 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 13, 2015

was appropriate under the circumstances and not prohibited by clearly established law. … “If . . . aside from the impermissible arguments regarding disputes of fact, the defendant also raises the purely legal question of whether the facts alleged . . . support a claim of violation of clearly established law,

Coker v. Summit County Sheriff's Department

90 F. App'x 782 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Dec 15, 2003

Therefore, Detective Jones did not violate a clearly established constitutional right and is entitled to qualified immunity. b. … Because Coker is unable to establish a violation of a clearly establish right, Sheriff Warren is also entitled to the defense of qualified immunity. 2.

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.

Trinity Cross v. Joseph J. Mokwa, etc

Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Nov 14, 2008

plaintiff’s clearly established federal rights.” … -18- right was clearly established, I would affirm the district court’s denial of qualified immunity. See New York v.

Bonide Products, Inc. v. Cahill

223 F.3d 141 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Apr 25, 2000

... to believe that he was acting in a fashion that did not clearly violate an established federally protected right.” … While the right to be free from malicious prosecution is a clearly established right, “defendants may nevertheless enjoy qualified immunity if it was objectively reasonable for them to believe that their actions did not violate

J.H.H. v. O'Hara

878 F.2d 240 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jun 23, 1989

Qualified Immunity The defense of qualified immunity represents an accommodation of competing social interests whereby officials who knowingly violate the law are held accountable while officials who reasonably perform their … To overcome a defense of qualified immunity, plaintiffs must establish that the “legal norms allegedly violated by the defendants were clearly established at the time of the challenged actions * * Boswell v.

Hudson v. Norris

227 F.3d 1047 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Sep 6, 2000

of clearly established law," Mitchell v. … Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511 , 528 n.9 (1985). 4 Qualified immunity shields a defendant from suit if he or she could have reasonably believed his or her conduct to be lawful, "in light of clearly established law and the information

Wilson v. Layne

Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Jun 28, 1999

Furthermore, the district court refused to accept the officers' alternative argument that, at a minimum, they were enti- tled to qualified immunity because in April 1992, the law was not clearly established that permitting … Talladega City Bd. of Educ., 115 F.3d 821, 826 n.4 (11th Cir. 1997) (en banc) (explaining that "the law can be `clearly established' for qualified immunity pur- poses only by decisions of the U.S.

Allen Ware v. Marvin Morrison

276 F.3d 385 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jan 8, 2002

Defendants maintain that actions restricting Ware’s ability to receive particular visitors did not violate his rights under clearly established law or otherwise. II. … If we determine that the plaintiff has shown a violation of a constitutional right, we then must inquire whether the constitutional right was clearly established. See id.

Elder v. Holloway

951 F.2d 1112 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Dec 19, 1991

Accordingly, it ruled in Holloway's favor on qualified immunity. 5 We have no difficulty with the district court's decision on the record it was presented. … that we expect the district court to research independently the applicable law whenever qualified immunity is at issue.

Levine v. City of Alameda

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · May 13, 2008

Qualified Immunity [4] The district court properly found that Flint was not per- sonally liable for violating Levine’s due process rights based on qualified immunity. … Under the defense of qualified immu- nity, a government official is immune from civil damages unless his conduct violates a clearly established right of which a reasonable person would have known. Long v.