Case law

State of Idaho v. Lon T. Horiuchi

215 F.3d 986 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jun 14, 2000

With regard to Horiuchi’s claim for qualified immunity, this court stated: “[I]t is extremely doubtful ... that Horiuchi will ever be able to establish that he is entitled to qualified immunity for his conduct in shooting … The court also wrote, “[t]he Special Rules violated clearly established law and any reasonable law enforcement officer should have been aware of that fact.” Id. at 1202.

Nicole Howell v. Rob Sanders

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Feb 2, 2012

at issue [] ‘clearly established’ at the time of [the] defendant’s alleged misconduct.” … The only remaining inquiry to establish qualified immunity under Kentucky law is whether the facts suggest that Sanders acted in bad faith. See Rowan Cnty., 201 S.W.3d at 475.

Maust v. Headley

959 F.2d 644 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Mar 26, 1992

Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, government officials performing discretionary functions are protected from civil liability when their conduct does not violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights … If there are issues of disputed fact upon which the question of immunity turns, or if it is clear that the defendant’s conduct violated clearly established norms, summary judgment may not may granted. Green 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.

Rebecca Lewis, Brenda Heath v. David McDade Individually and in His Official Capacity as District Attorney

250 F.3d 1320 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · May 21, 2001

Lanier, 520 U.S. 259, 267, 269 , 117 S.Ct. 1219 , 137 L.Ed.2d 432 (1997). 8 In Anderson, the Supreme Court held that for a right to be clearly established such that a defendant is not entitled to qualified immunity, "[t]he … The Cross Court found this conduct to be in violation of clearly established. The clearly established law upon which it relied was the 1979 Supreme Court case of Davis v.

Alvaro L. Hernandez, Jr. v. W.J. Estelle, Jr., Director, Texas Department of Corrections

788 F.2d 1154 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · May 9, 1986

immunity. … Under their qualified immunity, therefore, they were entitled to a judgment finding no liability in damages for failure to narrow the scope of censorship by clipping the banned items.

Jenkins v. Medford

119 F.3d 1156 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Aug 7, 1997

law. 8 Medford argues on appeal, as he did in the court below, that he is entitled to qualified immunity because the deputies have not alleged a violation of a "clearly established" right; he is immune from suit under the … This comment, however, directly construes the following language from Mitchell: 75 Unless the plaintiff's allegations state a claim of violation of clearly established law, a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled

Estate of Larsen Ex Rel. Sturdivan v. Murr

511 F.3d 1255 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jan 2, 2008

But if a constitutional right was violated, we next ask if the constitutional right was clearly established. … To be clearly established, either Supreme Court or Tenth Circuit precedent must be on point or the clearly established weight of authority from other courts must agree with plaintiff’s contention.

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.

Robert D. Nissen v. John Silbaugh William Hettgar Duane Shillinger

104 F.3d 368 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Dec 20, 1996

DISCUSSION 7 Qualified immunity shields governmental officials performing discretionary functions from suit if their conduct "does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … If we determine that the plaintiff has failed to allege facts which would constitute a violation of clearly established law, the defendant claiming qualified immunity is entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law. 4

Jemmott v. Coughlin

85 F.3d 61 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · May 23, 1996

The doctrine of qualified immunity provides that officers performing discretionary functions are immune from liability for civil damages if their conduct either "did not violate clearly established rights of which a reasonable … Given this finding, and the fact that defendants are accused of violating what they reasonably should have known is a clearly established right, we decline to grant qualified immunity to the defendants. 25 The decision of

Turner v. Scott

119 F.3d 425 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 16, 1997

These other motions did not raise the defense of qualified immunity. 1 Scott's motion stated in part: 41 The Defendant's motion is based on the facts and clearly established law that show that the Defendant: 42 l. … The issue on a claim of qualified immunity is not solely whether the right alleged to be violated was clearly established.

Hiroko Havekost David W. Sutton Ron Haglund Jerry Crowley v. United States Department of the Navy, and Jovito Banzon

925 F.2d 316 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Feb 1, 1991

Because the facts establish that Banzon’s action did not “violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known,” he has qualified immunity. Harlow v. … Rather, the case turns on a purely legal question: whether Banzon violated clearly established constitutional protections. Accordingly, we exercise jurisdiction over Banzon’s appeal.

Cole v. Ruidoso Municipal Schools

43 F.3d 1373 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Dec 29, 1994

" in cases where the legal norms the officials are alleged to have violated were not clearly established at the time. … However, when qualified immunity is raised as a defense, there is a narrow right to discovery limited to the issue of qualified immunity. Maxey v. Fulton, 890 F.2d 279 , 282 (10th Cir.1989).

Ronnie Lee Hamrick v. Robert Carson Packard Joseph Talley, Sherrye Elizabeth Elliot, and Town of Boiling Springs

57 F.3d 1066 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Jun 9, 1995

The officers' lack of knowledge makes this case clearly distinguishable from Pinder v. Johnson, 33 F.3d 368 (4th Cir.1994), which, in Hamrick's view, supports the district court's denial of qualified immunity. … to believe--that their actions did not violate clearly established law, and thus they are entitled to qualified immunity.

Melvin Folkerts v. City of Waverly

707 F.3d 975 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Feb 25, 2013

Schneider asserts qualified immunity. … 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 would have known

Hutsell v. Sayre

5 F.3d 996 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Sep 29, 1993

Hafer, --- U.S. at ---- - ----, 112 S.Ct. at 362-63 . 28 Defendants may, however, assert the defense of qualified immunity to the extent that their conduct "does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … clearly established at the time in question that a reasonable official in the defendant's position would have known that he was violating the plaintiff's constitutional rights.

Samuels v. Meriwether

94 F.3d 1163 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Aug 30, 1996

Government officials performing discretionary functions are shielded from liability for civil damages and are entitled to qualified immunity unless their conduct violates "clearly established statutory or constitutional rights … The officers claimed qualified immunity based on their contention that the beating never occurred.

Burchett v. Kiefer

310 F.3d 937 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Nov 19, 2002

The right to be free from "excessively forceful handcuffing" is a clearly established right for qualified immunity purposes, Kostrzewa v. … Pelzer, this right was clearly established for qualified immunity purposes.

Zinker v. Doty

907 F.2d 357 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jun 29, 1990

were not clearly established in July of 1984. … immunity where officials operate in an area in which the law has not been charted clearly.