Case law

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.

Santiago v. Stamp

303 F. App'x 958 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Dec 23, 2008

Keane, 196 F.3d 330, 332 (2d Cir.1999) (“Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity if ... it was objectively reasonable for them to believe that their actions did not violate [clearly established] law.”). … We therefore also vacate the district court’s grant of summary judgment with respect to its conclu *962 sion that defendants have established that they are entitled to qualified immunity.

Steven D. Brindley and National Pawn and Discount of Saginaw, Inc. v. A. George Best, II James Massey David Andrews Mark Lively Michael McCullen John Todd Charles S. Brown Richard Mainprize and City of Saginaw, Steven D. Brindley and Kellie Sue Brindley v. A. George Best, II James Massey David Andrews Mark Lively Michael McCullen John Todd Charles Brown Richard Mainprize City of Saginaw and Saginaw Police Department, Southfield Gold & Diamond, Inc. v. Mark Dougavito Charles Brown John Todd Troy Jolin Thomas McIntyre County Sheriff and (Fnu) Chiunti

192 F.3d 525 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Sep 22, 1999

Qualified Immunity 22 Government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate "clearly established statutory or constitutional … from liability, because they were performing discretionary functions, and their actions did not violate clearly established rights.

Catrena Green v. Adam Throckmorton

681 F.3d 853 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 13, 2012

Qualified immunity is a doctrine that “protects government officials from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … Rather, an officer is entitled to qualified immunity under § 1983 “if he or she could reasonably (even if erroneously) have believed that the arrest was lawful, in light of clearly established law and the information possessed

Ronald Stodghill v. Charles Brown

Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jan 9, 2008

The SAB members moved to dismiss the claim on the basis of qualified immunity. … The SAB members sought qualified immunity.

DeFabio v. East Hampton Union Free School District

623 F.3d 71 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Oct 13, 2010

did not violate clearly established rights of which a reasonable person would have known, or (2) it was objectively reasonable to believe that [their] acts did not violate these clearly established rights.” … Because “it was objectively reasonable [for the Individual Defendants] to believe that their acts did not violate [Daniel’s] clearly established rights,” they were entitled to qualified immunity with respect to Daniel’s

Daniel Newman v. Hamburg Township

773 F.3d 769 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Dec 12, 2014

Calhoun moved for summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds. … Sergeant Calhoun is entitled to qualified immunity if he did not violate Newman’s clearly established constitutional rights. Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 231 (2009).

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.

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.

Charles Stainback v. Ryan Dixon

Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jun 30, 2009

To determine whether a defendant is entitled to qualified immunity, courts must address two issues: (1) whether the defendant violated the plaintiff’s con- stitutional rights and (2) whether the right at issue was clearly … Only if a constitutional violation was established could a court address the second inquiry: whether the plaintiff’s right was clearly established at the time of the violation.

Doug Greisen v. Jon Hanken

925 F.3d 1097 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · May 31, 2019

Hanken is not entitled to qualified immunity on the public concern issue By 1995, it was clearly established that the misuse of public funds is a matter of public concern. See Johnson, 48 F.3d at 425. … Hanken is thus not entitled to qualified immunity. C.

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

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

Terry L. Arcoren v. Wenton Peters and John Schooler

811 F.2d 392 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Feb 2, 1987

In the case of subordinate officers such as appellees, qualified rather than absolute immunity is applicable. Harlow v. … The Court held that “Under the standard of qualified immunity [he] will be entitled to immunity so long as his actions do not violate ‘clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would

Buckner v. Kilgore, II

36 F.3d 536 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Nov 21, 1994

In analyzing a claim of qualified immunity, a court must determine whether the defendant's alleged conduct violated clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. … judgment on qualified immunity grounds is improper); Poe v.

Galvin v. Hay

374 F.3d 739 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Mar 18, 2004

DISCUSSION I Qualiñed Immunity Qualified immunity analysis proceeds in two stages. We must first inquire whether the plaintiffs have established a constitutional violation. … Until then, the constitutional right violated by the defendants was not clearly established. The defendants are therefore entitled to qualified immunity for the narrow tailoring violation.

A. Eugene Ramey v. Charles Bowsher, Comptroller of the United States

915 F.2d 731 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Oct 5, 1990

Earl Wysong, a former employee at the GAO, to establish that his eoworker, Ms. Drake, should not have been promoted because she was not qualified for the GS-14 position. … The record also supports the District Court’s view that Drake was not only qualified for the position, but probably even better qualified than Ramey.

Flowers v. City of Minneapolis

478 F.3d 869 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Mar 1, 2007

Minnesota police officer Kevin Stoll appeals the district court’s denial of his motion for summary judgment based on qualified immunity. … If so, then we determine whether the constitutional right was clearly established at the time. Id.

SCHROEDER v. McDONALD

41 F.3d 1272 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Nov 29, 1994

Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 526 , 105 S.Ct. 2806, 2815-16 , 86 L.Ed.2d 411 (1985). 22 The qualified immunity test requires a two-part analysis: "(1) Was the law governing the official's conduct clearly established? … Thus, defendants acted in complete disregard for clearly established prison regulations. 33 Accordingly, defendants fail the second part of the qualified immunity test.

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.