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.

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.

Eric Mueller v. City of Boise

700 F.3d 1180 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Sep 10, 2012

I A Qualified Immunity [1] We begin our discussion of whether Detective Dale Rogers and Officers Ted Snyder and Tim Green are entitled to qualified immunity for their … “The doctrine of qualified immunity protects gov- ernment officials ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly 10850 MUELLER v.

Randall Edward Rex v. John P. Teeples, Donald E. Johnson, Jr., and Edward Rupert, Defendants

753 F.2d 840 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Mar 27, 1985

Accordingly, Johnson is entitled only to qualified immunity with respect to Rex’s claims arising from the alleged coerced confession. … Under Harlow , summary judgment in favor of a defendant seeking qualified immunity is appropriate only if the constitutional standards governing the challenged conduct were not clearly established. 457 U.S. at 818-19 , 102

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.

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.’”

Tellier v. Scott

130 F. App'x 504 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · May 11, 2005

immunity, Tellier v. … Qualified immunity insulates: (1) conduct that did not violate a clearly established constitutional right; or (2) conduct that did but it was objectively reasonable for the official to believe that it did not.

Mitch Rooni v. Brad Biser

Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Feb 4, 2014

No. 13‐1511  at  issue  was  clearly  established  at  the  time  of  the  viola‐ tion.”Stainback v.  …   the  handcuffs  were  applied  was  clearly  established. 

Wood v. Sunn

852 F.2d 1205 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jul 27, 1988

The Supreme Court decided an entirely different issue in this case: precisely what must be "clearly established" for a law enforcement officer to be entitled to summary judgment on the issue of qualified immunity in the context … of a warrantless search. 4 The Supreme Court held that qualified immunity is available if a reasonable police officer could have believed that the search was justified, in light of clearly established law and the information

James Dean v. County of Gage

800 F.3d 945 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Aug 31, 2015

It also denied the officers’ renewed motion for qualified immunity, which they cross-appeal. II. The officers claim they are entitled to qualified immunity. … To overcome qualified immunity, plaintiffs must demonstrate both that “(1) there was a deprivation of a constitutional or statutory right, and (2) the right was clearly established at the time of the deprivation.”

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.

Rodriguez v. Neeley

169 F.3d 220 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Mar 5, 1999

The district court granted Neeley’s motion for summary judgment, dismissing the claims to money damages, finding Neeley was entitled to qualified immunity. … The bystanders argue that Neeley’s conduct in coordinating the “meeting” at the CSCD office was objectively unreasonable in light of the bystanders’ clearly established Fourth Amendment right to be free from an unreasonable

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

Jimenez v. City of Costa Mesa

174 F. App'x 399 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Apr 5, 2006

Officer Le is not entitled to qualified immunity on Carmen Jimenez’s claim. … We conclude, however, that Officer Chamberlin is entitled to qualified immunity because in 2001, the contours of the right against excessive force in the pepper-spray context were not so clearly established that a reasonable

Ball Corporation, Plaintiff-Appellant/cross-Appellee v. Xidex Corporation and Dysan Corporation, Defendants-Appellees/cross-Appellants

967 F.2d 1440 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jun 18, 1992

The district court adopted the analysis of qualified immunity found in McDonald v. … The Supreme Court resolved the question of immunity in light of the First Amendment’s Petition Clause, holding that the author of the letters had qualified immunity for his statements.