Case law

Stefan N. Reiss v. M.T. Luchetta

78 F.3d 597 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Feb 28, 1996

Qualified immunity protects public officials performing discretionary functions unless their conduct violates "clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.' " Jantz … Clifton, 29 F.3d 1012, 1016 (5th Cir.1994) ("The right to be free from arrest without probable cause is a clearly established constitutional right.").

Summer Parrish v. Sheriff Ron Ball

Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Feb 10, 2010

Qualified immunity shields government officials from liability in their individual capacity so long as the official has not violated "clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would … was clearly established at the time of the deprivation."

Gosnell v. City Of Troy

979 F.2d 1257 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Nov 17, 1992

These defendants argued that they did not violate any clearly established constitutional rights by their actions in 1983. … CONCLUSION 19 Because the district court has yet to clearly rule on the merits of the qualified immunity issue, no appealable order exists under the collateral order doctrine.

Norse v. City of Santa Cruz

118 F. App'x 177 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Dec 3, 2004

Immunity attaches if the official allegedly violated a right that was not clearly established, or if a reasonable official would have thought the defendant’s actions were constitutional. Trevino v. … Qualified immunity’s expansive contours protect “all but the plainly incompetent or those who knowingly violate the law,” Malley v.

Walker v. McLellan

52 F.3d 339 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Apr 21, 1995

When a defendant raises qualified immunity, "the burden shifts to the plaintiff to show both facts and law to establish that the defendant is not entitled to a qualified immunity." Workman v. … We review de novo the denial of qualified immunity. Bella v.

McKinney, Timothy v. Duplain, Robert

463 F.3d 679 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Sep 12, 2006

, the issue whether the federal right allegedly infringed was clearly established . . . .” … U.S.] at 317, typically, the issue whether the federal right allegedly infringed was clearly established, . . .”

Wadsworth v. MSAD 40/RSU 40

129 F.4th 38 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Feb 19, 2025

qualified immunity analysis was erroneous for lack of development, and (3), in any event, he is entitled to qualified immunity because the right was not clearly established. … Entitlement to Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity "is available to public officials whose 'conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would

Springmen v. Williams

Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Aug 18, 1997

Furthermore, qualified immunity lies unless there has been a clear violation of well established constitutional law. … Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, "government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liabil- ity for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory

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.

Oumar Sissoko Julie Sissoko v. Loyda R. Rocha United States of America, Oumar Sissoko, an Individual Julie Sissoko, an Individual v. Alberto R. Gonzales, Attorney General, Attorney General of the United States U.S. Immigration & Naturalization Service Doris Meissner, Commissioner, United States Ins Richard Nmi Rogers, District Director, United States Ins Four Unknown Named Officers, of the United States Immigration and Naturalization Service United States U.S. Public Health Services Joseph Chen, Md Unknown Named Employees of the United States Public Health Services, and Loyda R. Rocha, Immigration Inspector, United States Ins

440 F.3d 1145 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Mar 16, 2006

[and that] Defendant Rocha is not entitled to qualified immunity. Because he was not a newly-arriving alien, Mr. Sissoko's right not to be detained was clearly established. … Violation of a clearly established right?

Charles E. Johnson v. Dan Schneiderheinz

Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Dec 9, 1996

The sheriff moved for summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity. … Government officials are qualifiedly immune from liability in civil actions to the extent their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known

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.

Larry Smithson v. Kenneth Brown

Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Dec 21, 2000

is clearly established; and (3) raise[d] a genuine issue of fact as to whether the official would have known that his alleged conduct would have violated the plaintiff[s'] clearly established right.” … Stated another way, 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 [that the defendant

Allen v. Higgins

902 F.2d 682 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jun 13, 1990

Based on the trial court's finding that the catalog ordered by Allen, "clearly posed no threat to the security of the institution," the trial court concluded that Groose was not entitled to qualified immunity. … A government official performing discretionary functions is generally entitled to qualified immunity when his conduct "does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would

Grayden v. Rhodes

345 F.3d 1225 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Sep 17, 2003

long as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights. … In sum, a government official is not entitled to qualified immunity if his or her conduct violated a clearly established statutory or constitutional right and if the contours of the right were defined with such clarity that

Cromer v. Brown

88 F.3d 1315 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Jul 15, 1996

established at the time of the challenged actions. 58 If the law supporting the allegedly violated rights was not clearly established, then immunity must lie. … Where the law is clearly established, and where no reasonable officer could believe he was acting in accordance with it, qualified immunity will not attach. 59 Id.

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.

Lily Keyser Maria Sofia Robledo Richard M. Cisneros v. Sacramento City Unified School District, a Public Entity and James Sweeney

238 F.3d 1132 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Feb 7, 2001

Second, the district court concluded that Sweeney was entitled to qualified immunity because it was not clearly established that it was illegal to retaliate against Key-ser, Robledo, and Cisneros for bringing charges of misuse … Ill With respect to the merits, Keyser, Robledo, and Cisneros challenge the conclusion that Sweeney has qualified immunity from suit due to the fact that it was not clearly established in 1997 that it is illegal to retaliate

Hodge ex rel. Hodge v. Jones

31 F.3d 157 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Jul 19, 1994

The court rejected Defendants’ proffered qualified immunity defense on a determination that both the protected interest of familial privacy and the procedural safeguards of§ 5-715 were clearly established at the time of Defendants … In finding that Defendants were not entitled to qualified immunity, the district court concluded that they had violated the Hodges’ “clearly established” constitutional right of familial privacy and autonomy, which it defined

Broudy, Alice P. v. Mather, Susan H.

460 F.3d 106 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Aug 23, 2006

Saxner, 474 U.S. 193, 200 (1985)), and qualified immunity because the plaintiffs had failed to allege a violation of a clearly established constitutional right, id. at 11-13. … 17 alone a “clearly established” constitutional right.