Case law

State of Idaho v. Coeur D'Alene Tribe

794 F.3d 1039 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jul 22, 2015

Thus, the immunity inquiry necessarily requires the determination of whether Hold’em qualifies as Class III gaming.  STATE OF IDAHO V. COEUR D’ALENE TRIBE 9 A. … In a handful of clearly distinguishable cases, courts have determined that gaming statutes permitting casino nights for charitable purposes establish that gaming is “explicitly authorized by the laws of the State” and that

Rellergert v. Cape Girardeau County

924 F.2d 794 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Feb 4, 1991

DISCUSSION The law of qualified immunity is especially susceptible to the adage that the law *796 applied to hard facts yields unfortunate results. … While we conclude that the law is clearly established that jailers must take measures to prevent inmate suicides once they know of the suicide risk, we cannot say that the law is established with any clarity as to what those

Light v. Haws

472 F.3d 74 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jan 3, 2007

The fate of an official with qualified immunity depends upon the circumstances and motivations of his actions, as established by the evidence . . . . … "; see Schrob, 948 F.2d at 1407 n. 5 ("[A]n official with qualified immunity must establish that the[ ] conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have

Sagendorf-Teal v. County of Rensselaer

100 F.3d 270 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Nov 12, 1996

Qualified Immunity Phillips contends that he was entitled to qualified immunity. … A government official is protected by qualified immunity insofar as the official’s conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.

Bobbie Coleman v. Gannen Manthey

349 F.3d 534 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Nov 12, 2003

But if the answer is yes, "the next, sequential step is to ask whether the right was clearly established. … Appellants do not argue that the right was not "clearly established" as defined by Saucier.

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.

Southard v. Texas Board of Criminal Justice

114 F.3d 539 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jun 13, 1997

Strain asserted that he was entitled to qualified immunity because the facts alleged failed to state violations of clearly established constitutional rights. The court denied those motions. … Strain contends that he is entitled to qualified immunity because Fleming failed to raise a fact issue that Strain's conduct, objectively viewed, violated her clearly established rights.

Ringuette v. City

Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Jun 5, 1998

Mass. 1995), but several claims were reserved for trial, and the issue of qualified immunity was not resolved. … violated clearly established law.

Barnes v. Wright

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 2, 2006

Qualified Immunity “[T]he Supreme Court [has] held that ‘government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly … Second, we consider whether the violation involved a clearly established constitutional right of which a reasonable person would have known.

Systems Contractors Corporation v. Orleans Parish School Board, Kenneth J. Ducote

148 F.3d 571 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Aug 12, 1998

Government officials performing discretionary functions enjoy the protection of qualified immunity in § 1983 cases. 10 Officials are immune if their actions are “objectively reasonable” in the light of “clearly established … Gilley, the Supreme Court established a two-step analysis for qualified immunity cases. 12 First, we determine whether the plaintiff alleged the violation of a clearly established constitutional right under currently applicable

Betty Thompson Donald Thompson v. Upshur County, Tx, R.D. Cross, Individually and in His Official Capacity as Sheriff of Upshur County, Tx Paula Whorton, Individually and in Her Official Capacity as Jailer, Upshur County Robert Cromley, Individually and in His Official Capacity as Lieutenant, Upshur County Jail, Betty Thompson Donald Thompson v. Upshur County, Tx, Eugene Tefteller, Individually and in His Official Capacity as Sheriff, Marion County, Tx

245 F.3d 447 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Mar 15, 2001

To ensure that qualified immunity serves its intended purpose, it is of paramount import, during step two, to define "clearly established law" at the proper level of generality. Anderson v. … Thus, the issue as to sheriff Cross's claim of qualified immunity is whether his policies were objectively reasonable in light of then clearly established law.

Rogers v. Clark County School District

52 F. App'x 911 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Dec 9, 2002

Goldman argues that he is entitled to qualified immunity because he did not violate Rogers’ clearly established constitutional rights. … If we find a violation of a constitutional right, we consider whether the right was clearly established. Id.

Joel LeVine v. Kathleen Roebuck

Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Dec 4, 2008

The court then granted Youngs qualified immunity because “the law of the Eighth Circuit was not clearly established at the time of [her] actions.” In Saucier v. … But that proposition was not clearly established by those cases, or by any other.

Manning, Steven v. Miller, Gary

Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jan 21, 2004

Similarly, Manning is able to meet the second prong of the qualified immunity test: his constitutional due proc- ess right was “clearly established” at the time he asserts it was violated. … Because Manning is able to show that he is asserting a violation of a constitutional right and that the right was clearly established at that time, Agents Buchan and Miller cannot prevail on their qualified immunity claim

Piazza v. Mayne

217 F.3d 239 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jun 29, 2000

If the court finds that the official’s conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right, the court must then consider whether the official is nonetheless entitled to qualified immunity because his conduct was … deprives Mayne of qualified immunity.

D. Scott Forrester v. Kimberly Rosa

Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Feb 7, 2005

Johnson and Rosa moved for summary judgment, arguing they are entitled to qualified immunity because Forrester cannot prove any violation of clearly established -5- constitutional … , Forrester has failed to allege a violation of a clearly established due process right, and Rosa and Johnson are entitled to qualified immunity.

Norwood v. Vance

572 F.3d 626 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jul 9, 2009

Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity so long as a right to outdoor exercise in the midst of severe ongoing prison violence was not clearly established at the time defendants acted. See Saucier v. … Certainly, no authority clearly established the contrary. Allen didn’t. See p. 631-32 supra. And Spain v.

Center For Bio-Ethical Reform, Inc. v. City Of Springboro

477 F.3d 807 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Feb 20, 2007

Plaintiffs' Rights Were Clearly Established 52 Qualified immunity does not protect those who knowingly violate the law. Malley v. … To decide whether qualified immunity is proper, we again consider whether Defendants violated a "clearly established" constitutional right. Saucier, 533 U.S. at 207, 121 S.Ct. 2151 .

David A. Duffy v. Charles R. Wolle Harold D. Vietor Ronald Longstaff, Sued as Ronald E. Longstaff

123 F.3d 1026 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Oct 29, 1997

Finally, the Panel argues that it is entitled to qualified immunity from Duffy’s suit. … We have held that [a] right is ‘clearly established’ for qualified immunity purposes if the contours of the right are sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that right

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.