Case law

United Food and Commercial Workers, Afl-Cio, Clc, Local No. 88 v. Shop 'N Save Warehouse Foods, Inc.

113 F.3d 893 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · May 16, 1997

above, an employee, upon returning to work with a doctor’s release indicating physical fitness to return to work, shall be placed in the same job classification, seniority permitting, and shall receive the rate of pay then established

Ajaj v. Federal Bureau of Prisons

25 F.4th 805 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Feb 9, 2022

The defense of qualified immunity is a judicially recognized doctrine that shields government officials “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … Thus, the same context that supported a RFRA damages remedy also supported the application of qualified-immunity doctrine, which limits individual liability to violations of clearly established law.

Harris v. City of Cleveland

7 F. App'x 452 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Mar 26, 2001

Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, a law enforcement official performing a discretionary function may be immune from civil liability in a Bivens action if his conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … In particular, a plaintiff must establish with particularity that a defendant himself has violated some clearly established statutory or constitutional right in order to strip that person of the protection of qualified immunity

Jerica Moore-Jones v. Anthony Quick

909 F.3d 983 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Nov 28, 2018

Quick is entitled to qualified immunity unless his “conduct violated a clearly established constitutional or statutory right of which a reasonable officer would have known.” Cravener v. … The district court erred in concluding Moore-Jones’s right was clearly established. Quick is entitled to qualified immunity. This also resolves Moore-Jones’s state-law, excessive-force claims. See Baldridge v.

Doe v. Bobbitt

881 F.2d 510 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Aug 9, 1989

The sole issue on appeal is whether the defendants are entitled to summary judgment on the ground of qualified immunity. … Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, public officials performing discretionary functions are protected against suits for damages unless their conduct violates clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of

Tachias v. Sanders

130 F.4th 836 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Mar 10, 2025

Qualified Immunity’s “Clearly Established” Prong Accepting the district court’s unchallenged conclusion that Sanders’s actions constituted a violation of the Appellees’ First Amendment rights (see ROA at 33), we … now turn to the “clearly established” prong of qualified immunity.

Jerry Capps v. David Olson

780 F.3d 879 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Mar 16, 2015

(2) Clearly Established Constitutional Right Even if the jury could conclude a constitutional violation occurred, qualified immunity still protects an officer if the right defined in the specific context … of the case was not clearly established.

Marsha Ann Mettler, Individually and as Trustee for the Heirs of Shawn Michael Mettler v. Edward M. Whitledge, Thomas Haltiner, Ramsey County, Marsha Ann Mettler, Individually and as Trustee for the Heirs of Shawn Michael Mettler v. Edward M. Whitledge, Thomas Haltiner, Ramsey County

165 F.3d 1197 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jan 25, 1999

Mettler's excessive force claim, because qualified immunity protects them from liability. … Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818-19 , 102 S.Ct. 2727 , 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982) (saying that government officials have qualified immunity from civil liability under § 1983 "insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established

Monteiro v. City of Elizabeth

436 F.3d 397 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Feb 8, 2006

Perkins-Auguste as a reasonable public official would have known that her specific conduct violated the Plaintiff's clearly established rights and was not subject to qualified immunity. See Anderson v. … B. 49 The second stage of the qualified immunity analysis is whether, given the existence of a constitutional violation, a reasonable person should have recognized it under "clearly established" law.

Burrell v. Board of Trustees

970 F.2d 785 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Sep 2, 1992

facts, if true, constitute a violation of clearly established law by the defendant[s].” … In part II B., we established that public officials cannot assert qualified immunity against a section 1985(3) claim.

Gross v. Pirtle

245 F.3d 1151 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Apr 9, 2001

An order denying summary judgment based on qualified immunity necessarily involves a legal determination that certain alleged actions violate clearly established law. Id. at 313. … Gross, we conclude he has failed to establish that Deputy Pirtle’s actions constituted excessive force, and Deputy Pirtle is therefore entitled to qualified immunity as a matter of law.

Vives v. The City Of New York

405 F.3d 115 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Apr 29, 2005

Normally, it is only after making such a determination that a court should ask whether the right allegedly implicated was clearly established at the time of the events in question." County of Sacramento v. … any qualified immunity claim.

Charles Daniel Lindsey v. City of Orrick, Missouri, Shirley Taylor

491 F.3d 892 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jun 26, 2007

“Generally, government officials are entitled to qualified immunity under section 1983 when executing discretionary functions, unless the officials violate clearly established law.” Beck, 377 F.3d at 889 . … This court has “taken a broad view of what constitutes ‘clearly established law’ for the purposes of a qualified immunity inquiry.” Sexton, 210 F.3d at 909 (quoting Boswell v.

Jarrett v. Town of Yarmouth

309 F.3d 54 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Oct 25, 2002

Katz, 533 U.S. 194 (2001), the Supreme Court offered the following general guidance to courts reviewing qualified immunity determinations: "A court required to rule upon the qualified immunity issue must consider . . … The deadly/non-deadly distinction is significant in the Fourth Amendment context; under clearly established law, the use of deadly force is constitutional only if, at a minimum, a suspect poses an immediate threat to police

Mark D. Jones and Theresa A. Jones v. Ron Wilhelm, Cross-Appellee

425 F.3d 455 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Oct 3, 2005

Qualified Immunity The doctrine of qualified immunity shields government officials against suits arising out of their exercise of discretionary functions “as long as their actions could reasonably have been thought consistent … Since Wilhelm’s undisputed actions represent a violation of clearly-established, constitutional rights, we find that Wilhelm enjoys no qualified immunity as to the Joneses’ warrant claim. 2.

Arlean Brown v. Brian Elliot

876 F.3d 637 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Nov 21, 2017

Qualified immunity shields officials from civil liability so long as their conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Mullenix v. … The Supreme Court has emphasized “the importance of drawing inferences in favor of the nonmovant, even when . . . a court decides only the clearly-established prong” of the qualified immunity analysis. Id.

Wilson v. City of Boston

421 F.3d 45 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Aug 31, 2005

has shown . . . that a government official may have deprived him of a clearly established constitutional right, qualified immunity remains available to defendants who demonstrate that they acted objectively reasonably … in applying clearly established law to the specific facts they faced."

McKenney v. Mangino

873 F.3d 75 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Oct 6, 2017

Qualified immunity is a doctrine that shelters government officials from civil damages liability "insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … To be sure, "the clearly established law" employed in a qualified immunity analysis "must be particularized to the facts of the case." White, 137 S. Ct. at 552 (internal quotation marks omitted).

Eugene Sparing v. Village of Olympia Fields and Officer James Keith

266 F.3d 684 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Sep 19, 2001

qualified immunity. … Although Sparing has demonstrated a constitutional violation, he cannot show that the violation was clearly established under the second part of the standard for qualified immunity.

Smart v. City of Wichita

951 F.3d 1161 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Feb 26, 2020

Summary Judgment Based on Qualified Immunity “The doctrine of qualified immunity shields officials from civil liability so long as their conduct ‘does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … Whether the alleged violation was clearly established To rebut the presumption of qualified immunity, however, Mr. Smart must also establish that the constitutional right was clearly established.