Case law

Dr. Ruth Simmons Herts v. Dr. Gary Smith, Individually Acting Under the Color of State Law and in His Official Capacity as the Superintendent of Education of the Pulaski County Special School District Eugene Manfredini, Individually Acting Under the Color of State Law in His Official Capacity as the President of the Board of Education of the Pulaski County Special School District Pat O'brien, Individually Acting Under the Color of State Law and in His Official Capacity as the Vice-President of the Board of Education of the Pulaski County Special School District Gwendolyn Williams, Individually Acting Under the Color of State Law in Her Official Capacity as the Secretary of the Board of Education of the Pulaski County Special School District James R. Burgett, Individually Acting Under the Color of State Law and in His Official Capacity as a Member of the Board of Education of the Pulaski County Special School District Ruth White Tucker, Individually Acting Under the Color of State Law and in Her Official Capacity as a Member of the Board of Education of the Pulaski County Special School District Mildred C. Tatum, Individually Acting Under the Color of State Law and in Her Official Capacity as a Member of the Board of Education of the Pulaski County Special School District Pam Roberts, Individually Acting Under the Color of State Law and in Her Official Capacity as a Member of the Board of Education of the Pulaski County Special School District and the Pulaski County Special School District

345 F.3d 581 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Oct 6, 2003

] ... support a claim of violation of clearly established law.'" … clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. 9 Harlow v.

Maxwell v. City of New York

102 F.3d 664 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Dec 17, 1996

They were denied qualified immunity by Judge Mukasey on Maxwell’s claim for monetary damages for alleged Fourth Amendment violations in ordering the checkpoint. … Appellants are entitled to qualified immunity if either the checkpoint in question did not violate clearly established federal rights, see Harlow v.

Distiso v. Town of Wolcott

352 F. App'x 478 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Nov 5, 2009

The district court then denied the Defendants’ qualified immunity defense, asserting conclusorily that Nicholas’s right to be free from racial discrimination was clearly established, and that a reasonable school official … Therefore, if the facts alleged by the Plaintiff here do not make out violation of a “clearly established” constitutional right, then qualified immunity is available. Id. at 816 ; see also Okin v.

Williams v. Bass

63 F.3d 483 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 29, 1995

Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity unless the plaintiff's rights were so clearly established at the time the acts were committed that officials in the defendants' position, measured objectively, would have clearly … The district court properly applied this standard in deciding the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity.

Mays v. Sudderth

97 F.3d 107 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Oct 16, 1996

but to allow police officers only qualified immunity for following the advice.... … Ironically, it would mean that the police, who do not ordinarily hold law degrees, would be required to know the clearly established law, but prosecutors would not." 500 U.S. at 495, 111 S.Ct. at 1944.

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

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.

Richardson v. Orangeburg School Dist. No. 1

53 F.3d 329 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · May 3, 1995

The defendants moved for summary judgment on all claims and asserted qualified immunity as a defense to the liberty and property interest claims. … Fosyth, 472 U.S. 511, 530 (1985), defendants appeal the denial of qualified immunity on the liberty interest claim. 2 Defendants do not assert that the relevant legal principles governing this claim were not clearly established

Shames v. California Travel & Tourism Commission

607 F.3d 611 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jun 8, 2010

The Court established a two-pronged test to determine when state involvement in anticompetitive conduct can render a party eligible for immunity: (1) the challenged restraint must be “one clearly articulated and affirmatively … We held that the companies’ actions did not qualify for state action immunity because the OPUC “did not specifically and clearly authorize[ ] by the relevant statutory process” their anticompetitive conduct.

Dean v. Byerley

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jan 8, 2004

Additionally, we upon qualified immunity by showing that the constitutional conclude that Byerley is not entitled to summary judgment right was clearly established. … the qualified immunity analysis—the clearly to engage in the challenged conduct.

L. Peter Kaiter v. Town of Boxford, Appeal of Kevin Wood

836 F.2d 704 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Feb 5, 1988

The normal and well-established rule is that the denial of a substantial claim to absolute immunity from a section 1983 action is immediately appealable. Nixon v. … motion for summary judgment based on qualified immunity.

Silver v. Baggiano

804 F.2d 1211 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Nov 24, 1986

Thus, there has been no waiver of Alabama’s Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity. … Inasmuch as States may, under title XIX, set certain standards for the provision of care, and may establish rates for payment, it is possible that some providers of service may still not be willing or considered qualified

97 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 1679, 97 Daily Journal D.A.R. 3149 Herman J. Blueford v. K.W. Prunty, Warden K. Daniels B.H. Moses C. Basilio M.E. Bourland, Correctional Officer II at Calipatria State Prison Arnold Trujillo

108 F.3d 251 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Mar 6, 1997

If not, he is not entitled to qualified immunity. … (finding no qualified immunity where cases "clearly" set out the premises of a particular clearly established right). 16 However, government officials are "not charged with predicting the future course of constitutional law

Craig Cunningham v. General Dynamics Information

888 F.3d 640 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Apr 24, 2018

Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (“CMS”) to establish a system to keep applicants informed about their eligibility for enrollment in a qualified health plan. … The ACA directs CMS to establish a system to keep applicants informed about their eligibility for enrollment in a qualified health plan. See 42 U.S.C. § 18083(a), (b)(2), (e).

Patricia Lopkoff, Vincent C. Todd v. Gregg Slater, Patrick Wilson, Mary Sutton, Steve Evans, and City of Lakewood

103 F.3d 144 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Dec 6, 1996

infringed was 'clearly established.' " Behrens v. … Mick, 76 F.3d at 1134-35 . 11 Defendants raised the defense of qualified immunity, thus placing on plaintiffs the "heavy burden" to demonstrate that defendants violated clearly established law. Hannula v.

Penley v. Eslinger

605 F.3d 843 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · May 3, 2010

In civil rights actions brought under § 1983, the doctrine of qualified immunity “offers complete protection for government officials sued in their individual capacities if their conduct ‘does not violate clearly established … Once the defendant establishes that he was acting within his discretionary authority, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to show that qualified immunity is not appropriate. Lee v.

Bobby Bland v. B. Roberts

Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Sep 23, 2013

“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 … In determining whether a defendant is entitled to qualified immunity, a court must decide (1) whether the defendant has violated a constitutional right of the plaintiff and (2) whether that right was clearly established

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.

Air Sunshine, Inc. v. Carl

663 F.3d 27 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Dec 2, 2011

Qualified Immunity Standard Qualified immunity "provides defendant public officials an immunity from suit and not a mere defense to liability." Maldonado v. Fontanes, 568 F.3d 263, 268 (1st Cir. 2009). … "[T]he qualified immunity inquiry is a two-part test.

Asociación De Periodistas De Puerto Rico v. Mueller

680 F.3d 70 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · May 16, 2012

The qualified immunity analysis asks whether the facts alleged or shown by the plaintiff make out a violation of a -22- constitutional right and whether the right was clearly established … established at the time of the events and that the defendants were therefore entitled to qualified immunity.