Case law

Gros v. City of Grand Prairie

209 F.3d 431 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Apr 25, 2000

judgment on his qualified immunity defense in a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 suit brought by Danette JERRY E. … The district court granted We first must determine whether plaintiffs summary judgment for the City on qualified have alleged a violation of a clearly established immunity grounds.

Stotter v. University of Texas at San Antonio

508 F.3d 812 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Nov 5, 2007

If they do, the official is nonetheless entitled to qualified immunity unless the court finds that the official’s conduct was objectively unreasonable in light of clearly established law at the time of the state actions at … To be “clearly established” for purposes of qualified immunity, “the contours of the right must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that right.” Johnson v.

Morris v. Powell

449 F.3d 682 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · May 15, 2006

The defendants assert qualified immunity. … The initial two-part inquiry facing a court de- ciding a qualified immunity claim is (1) wheth- er the violation of a constitutional right been alleged and, if so, (2) whether the right was clearly established.

Gerhart v. Hayes

217 F.3d 320 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Feb 4, 2000

She also voiced these con- qualified immunity.1 The district court denied cerns to other academic colleagues within the university. … disputed and were material to tiff has alleged the violation of a clearly the claim. established constitutional right.

Tekle Ex Rel. Tekle v. United States

511 F.3d 839 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Dec 3, 2007

"[I]n the absence of binding precedent, we `look to whatever decisional law is available to ascertain whether the law is clearly established for qualified immunity purposes, including decisions of state courts, other circuits … As stated above, the UNITED STATES shall not be shielded in qualified immunity from liability for civil damages when the conduct of its agents violates clearly established or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person

Jewett, Terrance v. Anders, Dale

Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Apr 11, 2008

a given set of facts demonstrates a violation of clearly established constitutional law. … In reviewing a district court’s denial of qualified immunity, we cannot “make conclusions about which facts the parties ultimately might be able to establish at trial.” Leaf, 400 F.3d at 1078.

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. … on the plaintiffs’ claims relating to their clearly established rights under the Medicaid Act.

Peery v. Brakke

826 F.2d 740 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Aug 12, 1987

Qualified immunity is available to a government official if his or her challenged conduct did not violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. … We are able to simultaneously analyze the retroactivity and qualified immunity issues that Brakke raises because the resolution of each depends in part on whether the Loudermill decision changed clearly established constitutional

Antonino T. Dimarco, M.D., Cross-Appellant v. Rome Hospital and Murphy Memorial Hospital, the Board of Managers of Rome Hospital and Murphy Memorial Hospital, Kirk B. Hinman, Henry A. Sparks, M.D., Medical Director of Rome Hospital and Murphy Memorial Hospital, John A. Gorman, Chief Executive Officer of Rome Hospital and Murphy Memorial Hospital, Hca Management Company, Incorporated, Charles M. Brown, M.D., James D. Dunda, M.D., Neville W. Harper, M.D., Lawrence Burgreen, M.D., and Herb Skogland, M.D., Cross-Appellees

952 F.2d 661 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jan 2, 1992

concluded that "the Pickering balance did not tip in his favor so clearly that his superiors can properly be said to have forfeited their qualified immunity." … Here, of course, our conclusion on qualified immunity will differ, depending on what version of the facts is ultimately established as true.

George Waddell, Jr. v. James Forney

108 F.3d 889 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Mar 13, 1997

immunity, principally arguing that Waddell's alleged constitutional rights were not clearly established. … Government officials are entitled to qualified immunity when "their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known." Harlow v.

Mills v. City of Barbourville

389 F.3d 568 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Nov 12, 2004

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 … of probable cause is unreasonable, qualified immunity is not appropriate.

Colby Crosby v. Colleton County Sheriff's Office

Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Jul 31, 2026

Deputy Scott could still be entitled to qualified immunity if he can show that the constitutional right he violated was not clearly established at the time of his alleged misconduct. … At the time of the shooting, the right violated was clearly established such that Deputy Scott is not entitled to qualified immunity.

Ellis v. Coffee County Board Of Registrars

981 F.2d 1185 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jan 12, 1993

The district court also denied summary judgment to the county attorney on qualified immunity. … This court has established that "[l]ocal legislators are entitled to legislative immunity in this Circuit." Executive 100, Inc. v.

96 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 240, 96 Daily Journal D.A.R. 368 Marie Pellegrino, as Administratrix of the Goods, Chattels and Credits Which Were of John Pellegrino Marie Pellegrino, Individually and Joseph Pellegrino v. United States of America United States Department of the Treasury, Customs Service Nicholas Brady, as Secretary of U.S. Department of the Treasury Carol B. Hallett, as Commissioner of U.S. Customs Service Paul Andrews, as District Director of U.S. Customs Service in California Stephen A. Fanter and Jeffrey Woods, Marie Pellegrino, as Administratrix of the Goods, Chattels and Credits Which Were of John Pellegrino Marie Pellegrino, Individually and Joseph Pellegrino v. United States of America, and Stephen A. Fanter

73 F.3d 934 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jan 10, 1996

Both parties appeal; Fanter from the district court's order denying him qualified immunity and the Pellegrinos urging that the facts do not justify qualified immunity protection for either agent. I. … A determination of qualified immunity turns "on the resolution of the essentially legal question whether the conduct of which the plaintiff complains violated clearly established law." Id. at 526 , 105 S.Ct. at 2815 .

Fuller v. County of Orange

276 F. App'x 675 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · May 2, 2008

Because the facts, viewed in the light most favorable to Fuller, establish a constitutional violation, we turn to whether the individual Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. … The individual Defendants are not eligible for qualified immunity under California law because California denies qualified immunity to officers who use excessive force. See Robinson v.

Howard Ex Rel. Estate of Howard v. Bayes

457 F.3d 568 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 9, 2006

In support of their motion for summary judgment, Defendants alleged, inter alia, qualified immunity from suit. … If the court determines that it was clearly established, the defendant is not entitled to qualified immunity.

Napier v. Windham

Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Aug 6, 1999

There are two prongs to the qualified immunity analysis. The first prong is whether the constitutional right in question was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation. See Swain v. … Finding that no such duty was clearly established at the time of the incident, we held that the officers were entitled to qualified immunity. See id. at 28.

Johnnie Mitchell v. Lonnie Randolph

215 F.3d 753 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jun 15, 2000

I The standards under which we assess a claim of qualified immunity are by now well established. See generally Siegert v. Gilley, 500 U.S. 226 , 111 S.Ct. 1789 , 114 L.Ed.2d 277 (1991); Harlow v. … We add only a word about the other part of the test for qualified immunity: whether the right in question was clearly established at the time the public official acted.

Francis v. Giacomelli

588 F.3d 186 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Dec 2, 2009

Qualified immunity applies when the constitutional right alleged to have been violated is not "clearly established." Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818-19 (1982). … Because his actions were not clearly unlawful when performed, Mayor O’Malley is entitled to qualified immunity.

Anthony Gibson v. Jeffrey Kilpatrick

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Nov 19, 2013

was clearly established. … Discussion To rebut a defendant’s qualified immunity defense, the plaintiff must show: “(1) that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was ‘clearly established’ at the time