Case law

Moses-El v. City and County of Denver

Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · May 31, 2022

immunity because Moses-EL has not met his burden to show that the law was clearly established. … Brown-Dressel would be entitled to qualified immunity because the law at the time had not clearly established that Dr. Brown-Dressel’s actions violated Moses-EL’s constitutional rights.

Isaacson v. Dow Chemical Co.

517 F.3d 129 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Feb 22, 2008

Plaintiffs object, however, based on an argument that (1) only “official immunity defenses” qualify as “colorable federal defenses,” and (2) the government contractor defense is not an “official immunity defense” and, therefore … Because we find that a defense need not be an immunity defense to qualify as a colorable federal defense under the removal statute, we need not decide here whether the government contractor defense is an immunity defense—an

Murphy v. Morgan

914 F.2d 846 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Sep 24, 1990

The immunity issue is whether this right can be said, on the basis of Youngberg and Doe, to have been clearly established in 1986. It can be. … "Thus, ... a qualified immunity analysis entails a purely objective inquiry to determine whether at the time of the alleged illegal act, the right asserted by the plaintiff was clearly established in the particular factual

Reed v. Woodruff County

7 F.3d 808 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Oct 21, 1993

In addition, the District Court held that the defendants were not entitled to qualified immunity, because the law on deliberate indifference under the Eighth Amendment was clearly established at the time of the incident. … The Supreme Court applied this doctrine to qualified-immunity cases in Mitchell v.

Southern Disposal, Inc. v. Texas Waste Management

161 F.3d 1259 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Dec 2, 1998

Parker established a rule of immunity for acts of the state legislature in its sovereign capacity which ostensibly violate provisions of federal antitrust law. … Thus, the exclusive solid waste disposal contract qualified for state action immunity from federal antitrust laws.

Charles L. ROBINS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. B. MEECHAM, C/O, D. Morris, SC/O, G. Cox, C/O, Defendants-Appellants

60 F.3d 1436 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jul 27, 1995

The officers filed a motion for summary judgment on the grounds that no constitutional violation had been established by Robins, and, therefore, they were entitled to qualified immunity. … II The officers contend that even if this Court finds that inmate Robins can establish an Eighth Amendment claim against them, they should still be entitled to qualified immunity because the doctrine of transferred *1442

Sandra C. Parker v. Rodney Boyer

93 F.3d 445 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Aug 16, 1996

Government officials are entitled to qualified immunity from suit for civil damages if their conduct does not violate clearly established federal rights of which a reasonable person would have known. Harlow v. … We have missed this required first step in the qualified immunity analysis.

Katie Kindl v. City of Berkley

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 18, 2015

Qualified immunity protects government officials sued under § 1983 from damages liability “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would … To qualify as clearly established, “‘[t]he contours of the right must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that right.’” Brown v.

Kapinski v. City of Albuquerque

Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jul 6, 2020

In response, Detective Juarez moved for summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity, arguing that omitting the video footage did not transgress any clearly established law. … clearly established.”

St. John v. Hickey

411 F.3d 762 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 20, 2005

John suggest the violation of a clearly established right such that Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity. Finally, we conclude that, as to his official capacity claim, St. … But as a precursor to the Harlow qualified immunity analysis, a court must first determine whether any constitutional violation occurred, let alone the violation of a clearly established right. E.g., Saucier v.

Mary Jean MANGAN, Appellant, v. Donald CULLEN, Appellee

870 F.2d 1396 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Mar 22, 1989

Qualified immunity is available to government officials performing discretionary functions if the official’s conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would … A plaintiff attempting to defeat an official’s claim of qualified immunity must show more than the existence of a clearly established right; that party must also show that the *1399 contours of the right are sufficiently

Jeremy Jones v. David Ceinski, Jr.

136 F.4th 1057 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · May 8, 2025

The magistrate judge granted Ceinski’s motion for summary judgment based on qualified immunity. … Jones’s Right Was Clearly Established. Jones must also show that his right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation. Helm v.

Norse v. City of Santa Cruz

586 F.3d 697 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Nov 3, 2009

error to grant qualified immunity to defendants as a matter of law. … I would reverse the grant of qualified immunity as to the 2002 meeting and remand this claim for trial.

Mark A. Merritt v. M. D. Reed

Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jul 15, 1997

Qualified immunity shields government officials from suit unless their conduct violates a clearly established constitutional or statutory right of which a reasonable person would have known. Harlow v. … In considering whether defendants are entitled to qualified immunity, we must consider whether the plaintiff has asserted a violation of a constitutional or statutory right that was clearly established at the time of the

Henrietta D. v. Bloomberg

331 F.3d 261 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jun 9, 2003

In order to establish a violation under the ADA, the plaintiffs must demonstrate that (1) they are “qualified individuals” with a disability; (2) that the defendants are subject to the ADA; and (3) that plaintiffs were denied … As a result, we need not determine what factual showing would adequately establish an actionable failure to supervise, or whether the District Court clearly erred in finding any such showing was supported by the record below

J. Blaine Lewis v. Bruce D. Cowen, Roland H. Lange, and William v. Hickey, Individually

165 F.3d 154 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jan 15, 1999

rules that were clearly established at the time it was taken.” … ‘clearly established ..the defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity as to the' plaintiffs first amendment freedom of speech claim.”

Hans Bothke v. Fluor Engineers and Constructors, Inc., and W.J. Terry

713 F.2d 1405 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jan 24, 1983

“[Gjovernment officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … See also Harlow, 102 S.Ct. at 2738 (good faith immunity in Bivens suits applies insofar as conduct does not violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known”) (

Charles D. Lindsey v. City of Orrick

Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jun 26, 2007

“Generally, government officials are entitled to qualified immunity under section 1983 when executing discretionary functions, unless the officials violate clearly established law.” Beck, 377 F.3d at 889. … This court has “taken a broad view of what constitutes ‘clearly established law’ for the purposes of a qualified immunity inquiry.” Sexton, 210 F.3d at 909 (quoting Boswell v.

Sheldon Barr v. Robert Abrams, Orestes J. Mihaly, Mark A. Tepper, Rebecca Mullane, William Bottiglieri, and Janey Renee O'COnnOr

810 F.2d 358 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jan 28, 1987

Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 , 102 S.Ct. 2727 , 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982), because their conduct did not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. … Barr further contends that the prosecutors do not have Harlow immunity for this conduct, because they knowingly violated clearly established constitutional rights.

Spiegel v. City of Chicago

106 F.3d 209 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Feb 4, 1997

Instead, the court upheld the district court’s dismissal of the suit on the ground of qualified immunity. … Officers enjoy qualified immunity so long as their conduct did not violate a statutory or constitutional right that was clearly established at the time they acted. Kernats, 35 F.3d at 1176 (citing Harlow v.