Case law

Ricky Jackson v. City of Cleveland

920 F.3d 340 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Mar 28, 2019

Qualified immunity does not apply if (1) "on the plaintiff's facts," a constitutional violation occurred, and (2) the alleged violation was of "clearly established constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would … At issue in this appeal is whether, in 1975, the constitutional rights allegedly violated by Stoiker were sufficiently clearly established to deprive him of the protection of qualified immunity.

Kayser v. Caspari

16 F.3d 280 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Feb 9, 1994

Caspari and Buescher moved for summary judgement on the basis of qualified immunity. The district court denied this motion concluding that Kayser had alleged a violation of clearly established Eighth Amendment law. … Accordingly, we reverse without reaching the issue of qualified immunity. Section 1983 requires the plaintiff to allege that state actors violated his constitutional rights.

Michael Murphy v. Denis Dowd Missouri Department of Corrections

975 F.2d 435 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Aug 28, 1992

The district court concluded that this claim failed because Murphy had no clearly established right to be protected from speech that was offensive to him. … On appeal, Murphy argues that his constitutional right to be free from the adverse affects of ETS existed in 1988 and Dowd is not entitled to qualified immunity against either the ETS or the noise claim.

Walker v. Schwalbe

112 F.3d 1127 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · May 15, 1997

briefs arguing that they are entitled to qualified immunity because there is no clearly established law that a demotion for violation of an anti-nepotism policy violates a person's rights. … established right; in other words, we cannot decide the core qualified immunity question.

Alexander, Steven J. v. City of Milwaukee

474 F.3d 437 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jan 18, 2007

Clearly Established Law During the Relevant Period Qualified immunity protects officials from suit and from liability for civil damages when, at the time of the challenged action, the contours of the constitutional right … established, we also must conclude that the de- fendants are not entitled to qualified immunity.

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.

Cuoco v. Moritsugu

222 F.3d 99 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jul 28, 2000

that were clearly established at the time it was taken. … Quinlan’s Qualified Immunity. The claim against Quinlan does not make it past the first criterion for qualified immunity.

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.

Susan Vaughn v. Christopher Gray

Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Mar 6, 2009

and, if so, (2) whether the right was clearly established at the time of the deprivation such that a reasonable official would understand his conduct was unlawful.” … In this case, Appellants argue only that Vaughn has not established the deprivation of a constitutional right, and therefore, we need not address whether that right was “clearly established.”

Droz v. McCadden

580 F.3d 106 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Oct 7, 2009

This belief was sufficient to establish arguable probable cause for the arrest. McCadden is therefore entitled to qualified immunity on the false arrest charge. … McCadden is therefore entitled to qualified immunity. Because neither of the underlying section 1983 causes of action can be established, the claim for conspiracy also fails. See Singer v.

Gerald Dix v. Edelman Financial Services

978 F.3d 507 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Oct 19, 2020

The Officers Are Entitled to Qualified Immunity. And so we come to the final issue of qualified immunity. … “Public officials are immune from suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 unless they have ‘violated a statutory or constitutional right that was clearly established at the time of the challenged con- duct.’”

Rhodes v. Robinson

380 F.3d 1123 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Aug 19, 2004

Rowland, 65 F.3d 802 , 806 & n. 4 (9th Cir.1995) ("[T]he prohibition against retaliatory punishment is `clearly established law' in the Ninth Circuit, for qualified immunity purposes. … must first reiterate our firm recognition that "the prohibition against retaliatory punishment is `clearly established law' in the Ninth Circuit, for qualified immunity purposes."

Joe John Rodriguez v. City of Winter Park

280 F.3d 1341 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jan 30, 2002

violated clearly established law.” … Given the circumstances of the case at hand, the precedents cannot have clearly established the applicable law for the purposes of the qualified immunity defense.

Tyree Bell v. Officer Peter Neukirch

Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Oct 28, 2020

was clearly established at the time.” … If their unlawful conduct was clearly established, then they are not entitled to qualified immunity. See id.

Zinker v. Doty

907 F.2d 357 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jun 29, 1990

were not clearly established in July of 1984. … The Second Circuit has followed the teachings of the above cases and consist *360 ently has recognized the defense of qualified immunity where officials operate in an area in which the law has not been charted clearly.

34 Fair empl.prac.cas. 347, 33 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 34,223 Mary Susan Goodwin v. The Circuit Court of St. Louis County, Missouri, and William Corrigan v. St. Louis County, Missouri. Mary Susan Goodwin v. The Circuit Court of St. Louis County, Missouri, and William M. Corrigan v. St. Louis County, Missouri. Mary Susan Goodwin v. The Circuit Court of St. Louis County, Missouri, and William M. Corrigan v. St. Louis County, Missouri

729 F.2d 541 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Mar 6, 1984

Good-faith immunity under Sec. 1983. 20 Judge Corrigan argues that he was acting in "good faith" and hence is immune from damages for sex discrimination under the doctrine of "qualified immunity." … Under Harlow, a qualified-immunity defense is available if the defendant's "conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known." Ibid.

Argueta v. United States Immigration & Customs Enforcement

643 F.3d 60 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jun 14, 2011

It is also well established that government officials are immune from liability for damages where their conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have … In fact, the qualified immunity doctrine exists to encourage vigorous and unflinching enforcement of the law. See, e.g., id. at 1953-54.

Carter v. Detroit

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · May 27, 2005

Finally, to complete the qualified immunity analysis, this right was clearly established at the time of Hollins’s violation. … The right that Hollins violated was therefore clearly established. Under the facts alleged by the Estate, Hollins is not entitled to qualified immunity. The district court’s denial of summary judgment was proper.

Nathaniel Brown v. Michael Randle

847 F.3d 861 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Feb 7, 2017

Under the circumstances, therefore, the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity from damages. … Even if it is not clearly established that the Constitution requires immediate release of sex of- fenders who lack lawful living plans, it must be clearly es- tablished that inmates who have such plans are entitled to their

Greater Los Angeles Council on Deafness, Inc. v. Zolin

812 F.2d 1103 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Mar 11, 1987

in his official capacity, qualified immunity is the general rule and absolute immunity *1108 the exceptional case. … Accordingly, we conclude that the individual defendants here are entitled only to a qualified immunity, which protects them fully “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional