Case law

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

Plummer v. Quinn

326 F. App'x 571 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Apr 7, 2009

“Qualified immunity protects officials from liability for civil damages as long as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … available to assert that an immunity defense is established as a matter of law.”); Skehan, 465 F.3d at 105 ("[W]e may resolve whether, as a matter of law, the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity ... because, on

Larry Zubrod v. Shayne Hoch

907 F.3d 568 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Oct 22, 2018

was clearly established at the time of the violation. … The district court determined that the officers were entitled to qualified immunity. Id.

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.

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

Charles Lewis v. Freddie Smith, Mark Smith and Arnold Holt

855 F.2d 736 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Sep 19, 1988

Contrary to defendants’ argument, they were not entitled to prevail on a qualified, good faith immunity defense. … . -, 107 S.Ct. 3034, 3038-39 , 97 L.Ed.2d 523 (1987) (government official is not entitled to defense of qualified immunity where he violates clearly established constitutional rights).

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.

Gorromeo v. Zachares

15 F. App'x 555 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Aug 7, 2001

Qualified Immunity We review de novo the district court’s refusal to grant qualified immunity at the pleading stage in a § 1983 action and must accept the allegations in the Plaintiffs complaint as true. … Because Plaintiff alleges conduct that is patently violative of clearly established, fundamental constitutional rights, the district court did not err in denying qualified immunity, regardless of whether Defendants relied

Waters v. City of Morristown

242 F.3d 353 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Feb 22, 2001

Shuck’s actions fell outside the scope of § 1983 because they were not taken under color of state law, that Officer Graham was entitled to qualified immunity because he had acted reasonably and did not violate clearly established … Thus, the first step in any qualified immunity analysis is to determine whether a clearly established statutory or constitutional right has been violated.

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

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.

Maurice Lewis v. City of Chicago

914 F.3d 472 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jan 23, 2019

“Qualified immunity attaches when an official’s conduct does not violate clearly established statuto- ry or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Kisela v. Hughes, 138 S. … Qualified immunity requires a two- part inquiry: we must determine (1) whether facts alleged or shown by a plaintiff make out a violation of a constitutional right, and (2) if so, whether that right was clearly established

Shirley Dahl v. Jim Holley

312 F.3d 1228 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Nov 19, 2002

Qualified Immunity Analysis In considering whether the officers are entitled to qualified immunity on Dahl’s § 1983 claims, we must first determine whether the facts, viewed in the light most favorable to Dahl, establish … If no constitutional violation is established, then the officers prevail, and “there is no necessity for further inquiries concerning qualified immunity.” Saucier, 533 U.S. at 201, 121 S. Ct. at 2156.

Robert Stanley Williams v. Samuel P. Collins, Jr.

728 F.2d 721 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Apr 2, 1984

Second, Harlow —which relied on Nixon’s jurisdictional analysis to establish its own jurisdiction, Harlow, 102 S.Ct. at 2732 n. 1 —placed great emphasis, in its decision to eliminate the subjective prong of qualified immunity … This distinction between absolute and qualified immunity may well not survive Harlow’s language on the function of qualified immunity.

Mark Alfred Garmon v. Robert Foust, (Two Cases)

741 F.2d 1069 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Aug 20, 1984

Foust contends on appeal that he was entitled to qualified immunity as a matter of law. We agree. … Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 , 102 S.Ct. 2727 , 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982), the Court held that officials who enjoy qualified immunity “are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly

Annamma A. Ezekiel and Al Ezekiel v. Jaime T. Michel and United States of America

66 F.3d 894 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Sep 26, 1995

Michel was appointed (to serve as a resident physician in training in the VA hospital under the supervision and direction of the VA hospital medical staff) clearly establishes that he was a federal employee rather than an … Under 38 U.S.C. § 7406 , the Secretary may establish residency and internship positions and appoint qualified persons to such positions (without regard to civil service or classification laws, rules or regulations), and “

How v. City of Baxter Springs

217 F. App'x 787 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Feb 22, 2007

Myers was entitled to qualified immunity based on the absence of a constitutional violation, as well as the law not being clearly established. See id. at *9-11. … Myers is entitled to qualified immunity. Thus, we need not decide whether the law *799 was clearly established. See Hinton, 997 F.2d at 782. AFFIRMED.

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.

Domeco Fugenschuh v. Brian Minnehan

130 F.4th 645 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Mar 6, 2025

immunity. … Qualified immunity consists of two questions: whether a constitutional violation occurred; and whether the right violated was clearly established. See Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194, 201 (2001).

Butler v. City of Prairie Village

172 F.3d 736 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Apr 6, 1999

The doctrine of qualified immunity shields individual government officials performing discretionary functions “‘from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or … immunity standard, i.e. whether the constitutional right implicated by Plaintiff’s claims is clearly established.