Case law

Manuel C. Pedro-Cos v. Blas Contreras

976 F.2d 83 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Sep 30, 1992

established. … The district court declined to grant summary judgment on the ground of qualified immunity, however.

Brian Arthur Hill v. Patrick Scott

349 F.3d 1068 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Nov 14, 2003

Qualified immunity is available to government officials who prove their conduct did “not violate clearly established statutory or Constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. … To avoid summary judgment based on qualified immunity, Hill had to proffer sufficient evidence to find a violation of a Constitutional right, show the alleged right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation

Luis Dominguez v. Corr Medical Servs

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Feb 17, 2009

“Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, ‘government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability from civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … Clearly Established Right “For a right to be clearly established, ‘[t]he contours of the right must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what [she] is doing violates that right.’

Chiaverini v. City of Napoleon

602 U.S. 556 · Supreme Court of the United States · Jun 20, 2024

In its view, there was clearly probable cause to charge Chiaverini with the two misdemeanors. … Consider what is required to establish a claim of malicious prosecution.

Leaf, Larry J. v. Shelnutt, Ronald

Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Mar 18, 2005

, principles established by the Supreme Court with respect to the doctrine of qualified immunity. … of one ‘clearly established’ right . . . .”); see also International Action Center v.

Jones v. Horne

634 F.3d 588 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Feb 11, 2011

“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 person … Wolfish to demonstrate a “clearly established constitutional right,” Pearson, 129 S.

Harmasse Leclair and Elizabeth Leclair, Appellees-Cross-Appellants v. William Saunders, Appellant-Cross-Appellee

627 F.2d 606 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Sep 26, 1980

So too is appellant entitled to some degree of qualified immunity as an executive official for acts performed in the course of official conduct. Gomez v. … However, on the basis of all the evidence here, Saunders’ cloak of qualified immunity has not been pierced.

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.

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

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

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.

Matthew Parrish v. Jason Dingman

912 F.3d 464 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jan 2, 2019

The officers and the County invoked qualified and statutory immunity. The district court granted them summary judgment. … Qualified immunity shields Dingman from liability in this § 1983 action unless Parrish can show: (1) that Dingman “violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was ‘clearly established’ at the time

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. .

Larry Roberts v. David Lau

90 F.4th 618 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jan 11, 2024

Even after that determination, . . . a prosecutor may engage in ‘police investigative work’ that is entitled to only qualified immunity.” Buckley, 509 U.S. at 274 n.5. … Even after that determination . . ., a prosecutor may engage in ‘police investigative work’ that is entitled to only qualified immunity.” 509 U.S. at 274 n.5.

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.

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

Clark v. City of Reno

26 F. App'x 634 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Nov 27, 2001

I do not believe that any question of material fact remains as to whether the officers are entitled to qualified immunity for their unlawful detention of the appellants; clearly they are not. … Thus, for the purpose of the first prong of the qualified immunity test set forth in Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 , 121 S.Ct. 2151 , 2156, 150 L.Ed.2d 272 (2001), a violation has been established.

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.

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.

District of Columbia v. Wesby

583 U.S. 48 · Supreme Court of the United States · Jan 22, 2018

immunity under §1983 unless (1) they violated a federal statutory or constitutional right, and (2) the unlawfulness of their conduct was “clearly established at the time.” … authority for purposes of qualified immunity.