Case law

Pagels v. Morrison

335 F.3d 736 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jul 9, 2003

II. 7 Whether a defendant is entitled to qualified immunity is a question of law which we review de novo. Jackson v. Everett, 140 F.3d 1149, 1151 (8th Cir.1998). … Qualified immunity shields a government official from suit in his performance of a discretionary function unless that official's conduct violated a clearly established constitutional or statutory right of which a reasonable

Raspardo v. Carlone

Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Oct 6, 2014

[and]  [t]he  second  3 prong  of  the  qualified‐immunity  analysis  asks  whether  the  right  in  4 question was clearly established at the time of the violation.”   … violate  clearly  established  law.   

Ross v. Neff

905 F.2d 1349 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jul 19, 1990

the 'objective legal reasonableness' of the action ... assessed in light of the legal rules that were 'clearly established' at the time it was taken." … We consider the issue, however, because the district court made specific legal holdings with regard to qualified immunity and charged the jury with respect to McLemore's qualified immunity defense, and we may affirm the court

Walker v. Horn

286 F.3d 705 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Apr 16, 2002

Lasky who both argue that they are immune from suit under the doctrine of qualified immunity. … Generally, the relevant issue of law is whether the right the defendant is alleged to have violated was “clearly established” at the time the defendant acted or failed to act. See Behrens v.

Washington v. Kirksey

811 F.2d 561 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Mar 2, 1987

Qualified Immunity 13 Kirksey contends that the district court erred in failing to find that his conduct would be shielded from liability under the doctrine of qualified immunity. In Harlow v. … Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 , 102 S.Ct. 2727 , 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982), the Supreme Court established an objective test of qualified immunity: "[G]overnment officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from

Yvonne L. v. New Mexico Department of Human Services

959 F.2d 883 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Mar 24, 1992

Because the court found no clearly established right, the court upheld the qualified immunity defenses of defendants. … effect of converting qualified immunity into absolute immunity.”

Jerome Jarrett v. Town of Yarmouth, Gerard Britt, Cheryl Nugent Gomsey, Richard White, Peter McClelland Robert Chapman

331 F.3d 140 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Jun 12, 2003

a matter of law, arguing inter alia that the verdicts against them could not stand because the two officers were entitled to qualified immunity. … Katz, 533 U.S. 194 , 121 S.Ct. 2151 , 150 L.Ed.2d 272 (2001), the Supreme Court offered the following general guidance to courts reviewing qualified immunity determinations: “A court required to rule upon the qualified immunity

Edwards v. City of Goldsboro

178 F.3d 231 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · May 14, 1999

Qualified immunity protects government officials from civil damages in a § 1983 action “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have … We must then consider whether at the time of the claimed violation that right was clearly established. See id.

William H. Boddie v. City Of Columbus

989 F.2d 745 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Apr 14, 1993

Chief Gale argues that he has qualified immunity. … We conclude that Chief Gale should reasonably have known that firing Boddie for his association with union firemen violated clearly established law. The district court did not err in refusing qualified immunity. 3 IV.

Mariana v. Fisher

338 F.3d 189 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jul 30, 2003

That immunity is so potent that it protects petitioning notwithstanding an improper purpose or motive. Id. The doctrine was first established in E.R.R. Presidents Conference v. … To qualify as state action under the Midcal test, the challenged restraint must, first, be one that is “ ‘clearly articulated and affirmatively expressed as state policy,’ ” and, second, the resulting antitrust violation

McClendon v. City of Columbia

285 F.3d 1078 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jul 27, 2001

Qualified Immunity for Carney Even if an official's conduct violates a constitutional right, he is entitled to qualified immunity if the conduct was objectively reasonable.21 The objective reasonableness of allegedly … Although generally in cases of qualified immunity we look to the law of this circuit and the Supreme Court to determine whether the applicable law was clearly established at the time of the constitutional violation, we

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.

Melva A. Schalk v. James Gallemore

906 F.2d 491 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jun 20, 1990

Qualified Immunity of Gallemore In Harlow v. … Harlow is intended as a shield against liability but cannot become an insuperable barrier; therefore, public officials lose immunity in the face of clearly established law.

Forbes v. Township of Lower Merion

76 F. App'x 475 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Oct 1, 2003

Rather, our jurisdiction is limited to “review[ing] whether the set of facts identified by the district court is sufficient *477 to establish a violation of a clearly established constitutional right.” Id. … As we have emphasized, we must accept these facts as true for the purposes of this appeal and inquire only whether they are “sufficient to establish a violation of a clearly established constitutional right.”

Lynch v. City of Boston

180 F.3d 1 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Jun 16, 1999

Government officials have qualified immunity from personal liability for actions taken while performing discretionary functions. … If the right the government allegedly violated was clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct, "the immunity defense ordinarily should fail, since a reasonably competent public official should know the law

Charles F. Cutting v. Robert Muzzey

724 F.2d 259 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Jan 10, 1984

Reference to good faith suggests that the court was thinking of qualified immunity. … In sum, were appellees to be accorded absolute immunity, there would be little need or room for the invocation by public officials of qualified immunity.

Davis v. McKinney

518 F.3d 304 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Feb 21, 2008

Evaluating a claim for qualified immunity is a two-step inquiry. First, a court must decide whether the plaintiff’s allegations, if true, establish a violation of a clearly established right. Hare v. … Even if the government official’s conduct violates a clearly established right, the official is entitled to qualified immunity if his conduct was objectively reasonable. Id.

Amanda Rakes v. Jonathan Roederer

Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Sep 25, 2024

Rakes has established a triable state-created danger claim, they are nonetheless entitled to qualified immunity. … To violate clearly established law—the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis—“existing precedent must have placed the statutory or constitutional question beyond debate.”

Levin v. Childers

101 F.3d 44 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Nov 20, 1996

Childers submitted that he was protected by qualified immunity. 4 Dr. … Levin was by no means "clearly established" at the time of the brief suspension of Levin's Medicaid payments.

Good News Employee Ass'n v. Hicks

223 F. App'x 734 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Mar 5, 2007

Qualified immunity protects appellees unless the court determines that appellants “ha[ve] shown that the action complained of constituted a violation of [their] constitutional rights,” “the violated right was clearly established … [that] the law regarding such *736 claims will rarely, if ever, be sufficiently ‘clearly established’ to preclude qualified immunity....” Moran v. Washington, 147 F.3d 839, 847 (9th Cir.1998).