Case law

F.E.R. v. Valdez

58 F.3d 1530 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jul 10, 1995

The first inquiry in assessing the state agents’ defense of qualified immunity is whether the Patients met their burden of establishing a constitutional violation occurred at all and then whether the law was clearly established … Therefore, the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity from this § 1983 action.

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

Harvey v. Plains Twp Pol Dept

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Aug 30, 2005

Qualified Immunity “Qualified immunity shields public officials performing discretionary functions from § 1983 and Fourteenth Amendment liability ‘insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … Our qualified immunity inquiry is a two step process. First, we must determine whether the defendants violated “clearly established” rights. Id.

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

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

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,

Howard J. Brierley, and V-1 Oil Company v. F.J. Schoenfeld, Jr.

781 F.2d 838 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jan 15, 1986

The court found that Officer Schoenfeld was clothed with qualified immunity in the course of his challenged conduct and thus shielded from liability for damages. … However, they have been held to be entitled to a qualified or good faith immunity under § 1983 unless they violate a clearly established constitutional or statutory right of which they knew or should have known at the time

Joseph H. Bieluch, Jr. v. Bernard Sullivan, Commissioner of Public Safety, I/o

999 F.2d 666 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jul 27, 1993

The affirmative defense of 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 … If the law claimed to have been violated was clearly established, the immunity defense ordinarily should fail, since a reasonably competent public official should know the law governing his or her conduct.

Janice Hustvet v. Allina Health System

910 F.3d 399 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Dec 7, 2018

Allina employee Heather Lindblom sent an email to Hustvet clearly stating that completion of the health screen was a condition of her employment and Hustvet was “voluntarily terminating” her position due to her refusal “to … Courts have reasoned that “[a] ‘100% healed’ or ‘fully healed’ policy discriminates against qualified individuals with disabilities because such a policy permits employers to substitute a determination of whether the qualified

Stephen Jarriett v. Julius Wilson

414 F.3d 634 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 7, 2005

the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. … Qualified immunity protects government officials from civil liability for actions taken within their official discretion insofar as these actions do not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which

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.

Kathleen Stoneking v. Bradford Area School District

856 F.2d 594 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Sep 12, 1988

The basis for their claim of immunity was that Stoneking did not have a clearly established right to be free from the sexual abuse of Wright, a member of the school's staff, that they were under no clearly established duty … Qualified Immunity 11 The doctrine of qualified immunity entitles government officials performing discretionary functions to immunity from liability for civil damages when their conduct "does not violate clearly established

Jacobi Malone v. Robert Hinman

847 F.3d 949 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Feb 7, 2017

Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 396 (1989), we conclude that Officer Hinman is entitled to qualified immunity. … “An official is entitled to qualified immunity unless (1) the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, establishes a violation of a constitutional or statutory right, and (2) the right was clearly established

John Larry Ray v. Patricia Pickett, J. Alan MacDoniel U.S. Parole Commissioner

734 F.2d 370 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · May 14, 1984

Qualified immunity is asserted as a defense, and shields government officials performing discretionary functions from civil liability if their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights … only a qualified immunity.

Deborah Morris v. Dillard Department Stores, Inc, Dillard Department Stores, Inc Liberty Mutual Insurance Co R.W. Brown City of Bossier City

277 F.3d 743 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Dec 26, 2001

First, we determine whether a plaintiff has alleged a violation of a clearly established constitutional right, and second, whether the officer’s conduct was “objectively reasonable in light of clearly established law at the … The parties do not dispute that Morris has alleged deprivation of her clearly established right to be free from arrest and search without probable cause, or that the right was clearly established at the time of her arrest

Dana Harrison v. Brodie Faughn

36 F.4th 804 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jun 10, 2022

Discussion The defendants are entitled to qualified immunity unless their actions violated a constitutional right that was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation. See Atkinson v. … An officer is entitled to qualified immunity if “a reasonable officer in the same position could have believed she had reasonable suspicion.” Id.

Sachin Gupta v. Chad Melloh

19 F.4th 990 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Dec 6, 2021

The doctrine of qualified immunity protects govern- ment officials from liability for civil damages in situations in which their conduct does not violate a clearly established stat- utory or constitutional right. … Qualified immunity under § 1983 extends to police officers unless (1) they violated a federal statutory or consti- tutional right, and (2) the unlawfulness of their conduct was “clearly established at the time.”

Kimberly Diei v. Randy Boyd

116 F.4th 637 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Sep 17, 2024

Clearly Established. … We affirmed a grant of qualified immunity because the boundaries for the regulation of off-campus speech related to school activities were not clearly established. Id. at 545.

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

Christopher Drew v. City of Des Moines

111 F.4th 881 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Aug 2, 2024

-3-  Officer Hemsted is entitled to qualified immunity unless “(1) the facts demonstrate the deprivation of a constitutional or statutory right, and (2) the right was clearly … Officer Hemsted is entitled to qualified immunity. III.