Case law

National Commodity & Barter Ass'n, National Commodity Exchange v. Gibbs

886 F.2d 1240 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Sep 25, 1989

With respect to these claims, the district court ruled that they were barred by the doctrine of qualified immunity, as the defendants were simply carrying out their jobs and had not violated any clearly established laws in … While we agree with the district court’s reasoning that the defendants were entitled to qualified immunity as to the plaintiffs’ Bivens claims, we do not reach this issue.

Lester Shinault v. Dick Hawks

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Apr 6, 2015

The panel nevertheless affirmed the district court’s summary judgment in favor of defendants on the basis of qualified immunity because the constitutional obligation was not clearly established at the time of the conduct. … Qualified Immunity “Qualified immunity shields federal and state officials from money damages unless a plaintiff pleads facts showing  SHINAULT V.

Seifert v. Unified Government

779 F.3d 1141 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Feb 27, 2015

On the other hand, we hold that Sheriff Ash and Undersheriff Roland are entitled to qualified immunity on Plaintiff’s § 1983 claim because when they acted the law was not clearly established that Plaintiff’s testimony … “The doctrine of qualified immunity 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

Meeker v. Edmundson

415 F.3d 317 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Jul 13, 2005

Moreover, the district court refused to dismiss this claim against Coach Edmundson on the basis of qualified immunity, reasoning that "at the time of the alleged incidents, it was clearly established that a state actor could … Only if a plaintiff alleges the violation of a clearly established constitutional right does his complaint survive a motion to dismiss on qualified immunity grounds.

Larry Yowell v. Jerry P. Combs, etc.

Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jul 17, 1996

On appeal, Yowell contends the officials are not entitled to qualified immunity because his right to continued employment with the Department was so clearly established at the time of his demotion that the officials must … Qualified immunity shields government officials from suit unless their conduct violated a clearly established constitutional or statutory right of which a reasonable person would have known.3 Harlow

Deana Jett v. Mark McCarter

57 F.3d 1069 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 5, 1995

The court therefore denied McCarter's motion for summary judgment based on qualified immunity, finding that if the facts stated by Jett were proven to be true, McCarter would have violated Jett's clearly established constitutional … established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. 7 Most legal rights are "clearly established" at some level of generality, however, and immunity would be impossible to obtain

Robles v. Prince George's County, Maryland

302 F.3d 262 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Aug 26, 2002

Even though the officers’ actions deprived Robles of an actual constitutional right, Rozar and DeBarros may still be entitled to qualified immunity if that right was not clearly established at the time of the incident. … Police officers performing discretionary acts “generally are granted a qualified immunity and are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional

Maritza Amador v. Bexar County

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jun 4, 2020

Flores’s Fourth Amendment Right Was Clearly Established The second question in the qualified immunity analysis is whether clearly established law prohibited the officers from shooting Flores in these circumstances … We cannot “‘define clearly established law at a high level of generality,’” id.

Marie Butler v. Bob Gualtieri

41 F.4th 1329 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jul 25, 2022

pro- tection provided by qualified immunity would be “irretrievably lost[.]” … There, Flor- ida’s high court conclusively established the scope and meaning of its sovereign immunity statute: In Florida, sovereign immunity is both an immunity from liability and an immunity from suit. .

Maine v. Oklahoma Department

Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Sep 30, 1997

a constitutional violation, the defendants were entitled to qualified immunity because it was not clearly established in June 1993 that the alleged conduct would violate plaintiff’s substantive due process rights. … Thus, defendants are entitled to qualified immunity.

Laura Castro v. Michael Freeman

742 F.3d 595 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jan 31, 2014

Before addressing qualified immunity, we decide the threshold question whether the Fourth Amendment applies to these detainees. … "Unless the plaintiff's allegations state a claim of violation of clearly established law, a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal before the commencement of discovery.” Mitchell v.

Bernhard v. City of Ontario

270 F. App'x 518 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Mar 13, 2008

If we find that the officer violated a constitutional right, we next consider whether that right was clearly established at the time the alleged violation occurred. … established in 1996.

Jerry Turpin v. Cty. of Rock, NE

Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Aug 21, 2001

Qualified immunity shields governmental officials from personal liability if their actions, even if unlawful, were "nevertheless objectively reasonable in light of the clearly established law at the time of the events in … The inquiry in determining whether the officers are entitled to qualified immunity focuses on whether the Appellants have asserted a violation of a clearly-established constitutional right and, if so, whether there are genuine

Deanna Jo Shea v. Karla L. Smith, Scott Baker, Robert Rumgay

966 F.2d 127 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jun 11, 1992

Conversely, if the law was clearly established, the immunity defense fails because a reasonable public official should have known the law governing his conduct. Id. … The defendants acted within the contours of the law as it existed at that time, are entitled to qualified immunity, and summary judgment was properly granted them. *134 Because “[qualified immunity covers civil liability

Timothy Galarnyk v. Tom Fraser

687 F.3d 1070 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Aug 7, 2012

“Qualified immunity shields government officials from federal suit unless their conduct violates a clearly established constitutional or statutory right of which a reasonable person would have known.” Anderson v. … The Supreme Court concluded “that, at the time of [the defendant’s] arrest [in 2006], it was not clearly established that an arrest supported by probable cause could violate the First Amendment.” Id. at ___, 132 S.

Scott v. City of Mandeville

69 F.4th 249 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · May 23, 2023

“‘A good-faith assertion of qualified immunity alters the usual summary judgment burden of proof,’ shifting it to the plaintiff to show that the defense is not available.” 8 “The qualified immunity inquiry includes … Clifton, 29 F.3d 1012, 1016 (5th Cir. 1994) (“The right to be free from arrest without probable cause is a clearly established constitutional right.”); see also Davidson v.

Dunn v. Carroll

40 F.3d 287 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Nov 15, 1994

The Magistrate Judge also concluded that the defendants were entitled to qualified immunity, since there was not a clearly established right to wear an extraneous emblem on a fireman’s uniform or to call one’s superior a … Under the rules of qualified immunity, an official performing discretionary functions will generally be immune from liability unless a reasonable person in his position would have known that his actions violated clearly established

Michael Schertz and Beverly Schertz v. Waupaca County

875 F.2d 578 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Apr 21, 1989

Officials perform *583 ing discretionary functions are entitled to qualified immunity from civil liability “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … Schertz’s claims lack a connection to any “clearly established” law which the officials could have violated.

Amy D. Adams v. Richard Yontz

73 F.3d 361 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jan 5, 1996

Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1981). 9 Once a Sec. 1983 defendant has claimed qualified immunity, the plaintiff carries the ultimate burden of proving that the claimed right is clearly established so as to defeat the defendant's … qualified immunity claim.

Suarez Corporation Industries v. Mcgraw

125 F.3d 222 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Sep 11, 1997

entitled to claim qualified immunity under § 1983," In re Allen, 106 F.3d 582, 593 (4th Cir.1997), 2 McGraw and Rodd face considerable difficulty in establishing a claim to absolute immunity where the FAC explicitly alleges … immunity for acts clearly established to be beyond the scope of his authority.