Case law

Cynthia D. Foy, Administratrix of the Estate of Terry A. Foy, Deceased v. City of Berea James H. Hinners M. Schultz Robert Surgenor Bruce Merwin

58 F.3d 227 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 22, 1995

Nishiyama did not concern qualified immunity. The district court dismissed the section 1983 action for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. … Qualified immunity protects “all but the plainly incompetent or those who knowingly violate the law.” Malley v. Briggs, 475 U.S. 335, 341 , 106 S.Ct. 1092, 1096 , 89 L.Ed.2d 271 (1986).

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.

Michael Werle D/B/A Werle Consultants Family Mediation Center v. Rhode Island Bar Association

755 F.2d 195 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Feb 25, 1985

officials are accorded the lesser protection of qualified immunity. … Werle’s rights, appellees would be entitled to qualified immunity. The evidence demonstrates rather clearly that no reasonable person would have known that appellees’ conduct constituted such a violation.

John Doe v. Donald Rumsfeld

683 F.3d 390 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jun 15, 2012

This case fits squarely within a well-established exception that the denial of a motion to dismiss on the ground of qualified immunity has sufficient finality to warrant interlocutory review, and within the language of Hartman … Qualified immunity protects public officials personally sued for damages “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable

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.").

Van Emrik v. Chemung County Department of Social Services

911 F.2d 863 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Aug 13, 1990

It is also undisputed that the individual appellees enjoy qualified immunity from liability for damages if at the time of the pertinent episode it was not clear *866 that the actions they took violated established constitutional … rights, or if it was objectively reasonable for them to believe that their actions did not violate such rights as were then clearly established.

Cannon v. MacOn County

1 F.3d 1558 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Mar 7, 1994

qualified immunity was established by the Supreme Court in Harlow v. … If a reasonable official in Collins' position could have believed his actions were lawful in light of clearly established law at the time the conduct occurred, immunity applies. Stewart v.

Santiago-Mateo v. Cordero

Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Mar 20, 1997

Public officials alleged to have committed civil rights violations are entitled to raise the defense of qualified immunity. … The defense is not available, however, if the official's conduct violates a federal right that was clearly established at the time of the infringement.

Collins Ex Rel. Campbell v. Bellinghausen

153 F.3d 591 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Aug 10, 1998

Qualified immunity protects state actors from civil liability when “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … In ruling upon a defense of qualified immunity, we first determine whether the law that the defendant is accused of having violated was clearly established and then examine the information possessed by the defendant at the

Gonzalez v. Village of West Milwaukee

671 F.3d 649 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Feb 2, 2012

Claims of qualified immunity involve two inquiries: (1) whether the official violated a constitu- tional or statutory right, and (2) whether the right was clearly established at the time of the alleged misconduct. … No. 10-2356 21 clearly established under the state or federal constitu- tions at the time of Gonzalez’s arrests, the officers are entitled to qualified immunity. B.

Dwight Harris v. Victoria Independent School District

336 F.3d 343 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jul 6, 1999

City of Columbus, Mississippi 989 F.2d 745, 750 (5th Cir.1993) (holding qualified immunity unavailable because there was no government interest to balance); Click v. … There will rarely be basis for a priori judgment that the termination or discipline of a public employee violated "clearly established" constitutional rights. Noyola, 846 F.2d at 1025 . (emphasis added).

Meyer v. Fidelity Savings

944 F.2d 562 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Sep 13, 1991

The issue of qualified immunity should not have been submitted to the jury because Pattullo violated no clearly established law. See Schwartzman v. … Valenzuela, 846 F.2d 1209, 1211 (9th Cir.1988) (question of clearly established right is question of law). Thus, any error in the qualified immunity instruction was harmless. V.

McCarroll v. Nardozzi

323 F. App'x 7 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Mar 27, 2009

In deciding whether an officer is entitled to qualified immunity, we must determine whether a constitutional right was violated, and, if so, whether that right was “clearly established.” Koch v. … Thus, even if Appellees violated Randolph by entering after Allegrini gave consent but over McCarroll’s explicit objection, Appellees still are entitled to qualified immunity because, prior to Randolph , it was not clearly

Lee Ambrose v. Major Darin Young

474 F.3d 1070 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jan 23, 2007

Qualified Immunity Analysis The officials next argue they are entitled to qualified immunity even under the deliberate indifference standard. … Because we answer the first prong of the qualified immunity analysis in the affirmative, we turn to the second prong and ask whether the law was clearly established at the time of Ambrose’s death, such that a reasonable officer

Charles H. Von Stein v. George A. Brescher

904 F.2d 572 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jun 27, 1990

Intertwined with the question of probable cause is the issue of qualified immunity. … When there is no dispute about the material facts, the court has the duty to decide whether the defendants’ conduct violated *580 clearly established law. Mitchell v.

Richard Paul Greenberg v. Thomas Kmetko and Bruce Weflen, Richard Paul Greenberg, Plaintiff-Cross-Appellant v. Thomas Kmetko and Bruce Weflen, Defendants-Cross-Appellees

840 F.2d 467 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Mar 9, 1988

home unless the searching officers have probable cause and there are exigent circumstances," Anderson, 107 S.Ct. at 3038 --was clearly established. 21 Anderson filed a petition for certiorari on the qualified immunity issue … On remand, the district court was to permit Anderson to argue that the law was not clearly established as to the facts of his particular situation. 24 In this case, the district court's analysis of the qualified immunity

Walter Himmelreich v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons

5 F.4th 653 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 22, 2021

Page 7 Fitzgerald ties our jurisdiction over her appeal to an appellate court’s well-established authority to review immediately appeals of district-court decisions denying qualified immunity. Mitchell v. … of which the plaintiff complains violated clearly established law.” 472 U.S. at 526.

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.

Robert Lee Beck, Md, Dmd v. Texas State Board Of Dental Examiners

204 F.3d 629 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Apr 4, 2000

In the alternative, the defendants assert that qualified immunity is applicable because the actions taken against Beck did not violate a clearly established constitutional right, and were not objectively unreasonable. 12 … Claims of qualified immunity are reviewed under a two-step analysis. The first question is whether the plaintiff has asserted the violation of a clearly established constitutional right.

William Payton v. Rush-Presbyterian-St. Luke's Medical Center, Rick Freeman, Anthony Murray and William Blair

184 F.3d 623 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jul 1, 1999

did not “violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known” when he or she acted. … employed building inspector could not invoke qualified immunity).