Case law

Charfauros v. Board of Elections

249 F.3d 941 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jul 6, 2001

We disagree. 27 Government officials performing discretionary functions are entitled to qualified immunity when "their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … To defeat the Board's claim of qualified immunity, Appellees must establish that (1) the alleged conduct set out a constitutional violation and (2) the constitutional standard was clearly established at the time in question

Best v. District of Columbia

291 U.S. 411 · Supreme Court of the United States · Mar 5, 1934

There is no question as to the power of the trial court to direct a verdict for the defendant upon the opening statement of plaintiff’s counsel where that statement establishes that the plaintiff has no right to recover. … To warrant the court in directing a verdict for defendant upon that statement, it is not enough that the statement be lacking in definiteness but it must clearly appear, after resolving all doubts in plaintiff’s favor, that

Garvin, Donna v. Wheeler, Lawrence A.

304 F.3d 628 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Aug 28, 2002

Saucier was not a hallmark reformulation of the qualified immunity analysis. … Instead, Saucier stressed that a trial court must engage in the two-part qualified immunity analysis (asking first whether a constitutional right was violated and second whether that right was clearly estab- lished) before

Forte v. Rosenfeld

Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Oct 19, 1992

We begin with qualified immunity. III. … Id. ___ "Only where the action in question was clearly unlawful does _______ a defendant lose his qualified immunity."

Benavidez v. Gunnell

722 F.2d 615 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Dec 8, 1983

’s duties legitimately require action in which clearly established rights are not implicated, the public interest may be better served by action taken, ‘with independence and without fear of consequences.’ ” Citing Pierson … Accordingly, they were entitled to summary judgment on the ground of qualified immunity.

Lynn Lerwill and Penny Lerwill v. Gary James Joslin

712 F.2d 435 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jul 11, 1983

in federal court, as would be the case if prosecutors had only qualified immunity. … Thus, to grant a reasonably circumscribed absolute immunity differs from applying an objective qualified immunity.

Murrell Ex Rel. Jones v. School District No. 1

186 F.3d 1238 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Aug 4, 1999

In an action under section 1983, individual defendants are entitled to qualified immunity unless it is demonstrated that their alleged conduct violated clearly established constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … Dist., 54 F.3d 1447 , 1450-51 (9th Cir.1995), in support of its claim that the individual defendants are entitled to qualified immunity because peer harassment under Title IX was not clearly established as actionable when

Mendenhall v. Riser

213 F.3d 226 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jun 21, 2000

Qualified immunity protects against novel theories of statutory or Constitutional injury-any purported harm must stem from rights clearly established under law at the time of the incident, and the contours of that right must … When an individual asserts a claim for wrongful arrest, qualified immunity will shield the defendant officers from suit if "`a reasonable officer could have believed [the arrest at issue] to be lawful, in light of clearly

Ryohei Akima v. Caitlyn Peca

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Oct 26, 2023

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity shields government officials from suit where “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known … An official’s qualified immunity defense is analyzed under a two-prong framework, asking whether the official violated a constitutional right, and, if so, whether the right was “clearly established at the time.” D.C. v.

John Ellins v. City of Sierra Madre

710 F.3d 1049 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Mar 22, 2013

To determine whether a government official is entitled to qualified immunity, we ask two questions: whether the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and whether that right was clearly established at the … It is true that if Diaz “could ... have reasonably but mistakenly believed that ... her conduct did not violate a clearly established constitutional right, [s]he is entitled to qualified immunity.” Hunt v.

Lee Moorman, Jr. v. John A. Thalacker

83 F.3d 970 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · May 14, 1996

The district court1 denied the officials qualified immunity and ruled in favor of Moorman. … Freitas does not set out clearly established guidelines as to which verbal exchanges amount to "plans" and which amount to mere talk, nor does it indicate verbal exchanges alone may never be "plans."

James v. Grand Lake Mental Health Center, Inc.

161 F.3d 17 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Sep 24, 1998

James was not contrary to "clearly established law." In a separate order, the district court dismissed Ms. James' claim against Dr. Southern, finding he was entitled to qualified immunity. … Southern's actions were not a violation of clearly established law. 43 As discussed above, a public official is entitled to qualified immunity if his actions did not "violate clearly established statutory or constitutional

Shipman, Karen Y. v. Hamilton, Eric

Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Apr 1, 2008

Qualified immunity shields governmental actors per- forming discretionary functions from suit “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … “If the right was clearly established, the officer is not entitled to qualified immunity.” Washing- ton, 481 F.3d at 547 (emphasis in original).

Taft v. Vines

70 F.3d 304 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Jan 4, 1996

Under that analysis, we found that the officers were not entitled to qualified immunity in that case because: (1) the right not to be arrested without probable cause was clearly established; and (2) a reasonably competent … Under the first two prongs of the qualified immunity analysis, it is plain that the specific right in question--the right not to be stopped and frisked without reasonable suspicion--was indeed clearly established at the time

Luis Antonio Martinez, Sr v. Wayne Cnty., Mich.

142 F.4th 828 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 23, 2025

A county official is entitled to qualified immunity from a § 1983 suit if either (1) his conduct did not violate a constitutional right or (2) that right was not clearly established at the time of the conduct. … Because the Martinez Family did not have a clearly established constitutional right to timely notice of Luis Jr.’s death to prevent decomposition of his body, the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity.

Genzler v. Longanbach

410 F.3d 630 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jun 7, 2005

The supervisory defendants also moved for summary judg- ment based on absolute and qualified immunity. … If the former, they are absolutely immune. If the latter, they are entitled only to qualified immunity.

Bass v. Attardi

868 F.2d 45 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Feb 14, 1989

legal rules that were 'clearly established' at the time it was taken." … We have held that for a right to be "clearly established," there must be "some, but not precise, factual correspondence" between the case at hand and prior decisions. See People of Three Mile Island v.

Laidley v. McClain

914 F.2d 1386 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Sep 13, 1990

Qualified Immunity. The district court declined to rule on the question of qualified immunity. … Government officials performing discretionary functions are entitled to qualified immunity from suit insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person

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

Charfauros v. Board of Elections

249 F.3d 941 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · May 10, 2001

Government officials performing discretionary functions are entitled to qualified immunity when “their conduct *952 does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would … To defeat the Board’s claim of qualified immunity, Ap-pellees must establish that (1) the alleged conduct set out a constitutional violation and (2) the constitutional standard was clearly established at the time in question