Case law

No. 87-2817

869 F.2d 1312 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Mar 10, 1989

Appellants argue that qualified immunity is not available because the functions performed were not discretionary and because the law prevailing at the time of the alleged violations clearly established that the Navy's actions … defendants to qualified immunity. 24 Here, there was no clearly established constitutional violation, because Campbell can seek compensation from the federal government in the Court of Claims, pursuant to the Tucker Act,

Costello v. City of Burlington

632 F.3d 41 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Feb 14, 2011

Qualified immunity shields government officials from civil suits for damages “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. … immunity (i.e., whether a constitutional right was clearly established at the time the defendant acted).

John Auriemma v. James Montgomery and Donald Hubert

860 F.2d 273 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Dec 1, 1988

The absolute immunity of an advocate is not confined strictly to actions taken in the courtroom, see, e.g., Barrett, 798 F.2d at 573 , and, at least with regard to prosecutors, the Supreme Court has clearly indicated that … All a person need do to avoid personal liability under qualified immunity is to refrain from violating a person’s “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”

Chan v. Bay Area Air Quality Management District

2 F. App'x 861 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jan 25, 2001

immunity. … The court denied the dismissal on the merits, as well as the dismissal of the individual defendants on grounds of qualified immunity.

Headwaters Forest Defense v. County of Humboldt

211 F.3d 1121 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · May 4, 2000

Qualified Immunity “ ‘The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials performing discretionary functions ... from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established … An officer is not entitled to qualified immunity on the grounds that the law is not clearly established every time a novel method is used to inflict injury. Id. at 1362 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).

Elder v. Holloway

984 F.2d 991 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jan 27, 1993

Harlow shifted the inquiry in qualified immunity cases from the subjective good faith of the government officials to the objective reasonableness of their conduct in light of clearly established law. … The Court is merely restating its holding by emphasizing that to defeat a qualified immunity claim there must be an identity between the sued-on right and the clearly established right.

Paul Hudson v. Larry Norris

227 F.3d 1047 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Sep 6, 2000

of clearly established law," Mitchell v. … Qualified immunity shields a defendant from suit if he or she could have reasonably believed his or her conduct to be lawful, "in light of clearly established law and the information [that the defendant] possessed," Anderson

Pediatric Specialty Care, Inc. v. Arkansas Department Of Human Services

443 F.3d 1005 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Apr 17, 2006

That is a violation of the rights clearly established under the §§ 1396d(a)(13) and 396a(a)(30)(A) and our prior caselaw, and thus neither defendant is entitled to summary judgment on the issue of qualified immunity. … CONCLUSION 44 The current and former directors of the Arkansas Department of Human Services appeal the denial of qualified immunity on the plaintiffs' claims relating to their clearly established rights under the Medicaid

W. Thomas Jackson, M.D. v. Richard Leighton

168 F.3d 903 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Feb 22, 1999

Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, government officials engaged in discretionary functions are generally “shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … A defendant is not entitled to qualified immunity if the plaintiff asserts a violation of a known civil constitutional right, and “the constitutional right was so clearly established at the time in question that a reasonable

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.

Martin Allen Johnson v. Robert Moore, Superintendent, Clallam Bay Corrections Center

948 F.2d 517 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Oct 9, 1991

Although Pratt suggests that a softcover book “publishers only” rule should be scrutinized closely, it does not clearly establish the right to receive such materials from other sources. … Additionally, the prison officials’ qualified immunity, as discussed earlier, bars Johnson’s claim for money damages,

Emma Rivera v. Paul Murphy

979 F.2d 259 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Nov 10, 1992

Ill Qualified Immunity The Supreme Court announced the general rule of qualified immunity in Har *263 low, when it stated that “government officials performing discretionary functions, generally are shielded 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.” 457 U.S. at 818 , 102 S.Ct. at 2738 .

Cooper v. Dupnik

963 F.2d 1220 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · May 5, 1992

Qualified immunity protects officials from suits under § 1983 for violations of rights which are not “clearly established at the time of the challenged actions....” Mitchell, 472 U.S. at 528 , 105 S.Ct. at 2816 . … We conclude *1251 that the relevant legal standards were clearly established in 1986, and that the members of the Task Force cannot avail themselves of the doctrine of qualified immunity.

No. 94-5284

55 F.3d 1123 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · May 31, 1995

The primary question in such qualified immunity cases is whether the plaintiff has pointed to facts stating that the defendants violated her "clearly established rights." Anderson v. … Thus, the defendants did not violate the plaintiff's clearly established federal rights, and therefore they have qualified immunity from plaintiff's Sec. 1983 claims.

Moreno v. Baca

431 F.3d 633 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Mar 7, 2005

The court denied the deputies’ motion for summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds, holding that Moreno’s constitutional right to be free from suspicionless searches was “clearly established” at the time of the detention … Appellants’ first argument in favor of qualified immunity—that it was not clearly established that Moreno had any right to be free from suspicionless searches because of his parole status and his outstanding arrest warrant—relies

Watson v. City of Kansas City

857 F.2d 690 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Sep 14, 1988

The court did not address the defendants’ claim for qualified immunity. … The availability of qualified immunity does not depend on whether a constitutional violation has occurred.

Wilson v. Rackmill

878 F.2d 772 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jul 6, 1989

In their executive or administrative capacity, probation and parole officers are entitled only to a qualified, good faith immunity. Id. at 284 . … duties, entitling them to qualified or good faith immunity.

Singer v. Lafavre

Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Apr 13, 1995

Qualified Immunity A. … . _______________ Applying these principles, the threshold question in our qualified immunity analysis is whether Singer has established that defendants violated her Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.

Posr v. Court Officer Shield 207

180 F.3d 409 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jun 9, 1999

Qualified immunity under Golino and probable cause under Weyant both involve judgments about reasonableness. … Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 , 102 S.Ct. 2727 , 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982) (stating that the defense of qualified immunity does not withstand a finding that the defendant violated a clearly established constitutional right of

Daryl Monday v. Officer John Oullette and the City of Monroe

118 F.3d 1099 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 2, 1997

The doctrine of qualified immunity provides that “government officials performing discretionary functions, generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established … The existence of qualified immunity is a legal question for the court, see id. at 1157, unless there is a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether the defendant actually committed acts which would violate a clearly