Case law

Ronald S. Burgo v. Edwin T. Shimoda

5 F.3d 535 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Aug 18, 1993

indifference." 10 Qualified immunity protects government officials who perform discretionary functions from liability for damages if their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of … This decision does not affect our determination of whether Burgo had a clearly established right at the time of the alleged violation, for purposes of Shimoda's claim of qualified immunity. See Anderson v.

Leach v. Lowe

212 F. App'x 587 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Nov 8, 2006

We affirm in part, vacate in part, and remand for further consideration of whether the constitutional right at issue was clearly established for qualified immunity purposes. … “If the law did not put the officer on notice that his conduct would be clearly unlawful, summary judgment based on qualified immunity is appropriate.” Saucier, 533 U.S. at 202, 121 S.Ct. 2151 .

Topp v. Wolkowski

Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Jun 16, 1993

In general, the doctrine of qualified immunity provides that "government officials performing discretionary functions . . . are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established … of the district court, insofar as it denied the officers' motion for summary judgment on grounds of qualified immunity. -11- 11

Ronald Hamilton, Jr. v. Superintendent DeAngelo Earl

Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Feb 17, 2026

Qualified immunity “shields government officials from liability when their conduct does not violate clearly established constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” See Joseph v. … To determine whether the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity, we ask whether they violated a constitutional right and whether that right was clearly established. See Melton v.

Wilder v. Turner

490 F.3d 810 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jun 12, 2007

Officer Turner moved for summary judgment asserting a defense of qualified immunity. … When an officer asserts a defense of qualified immunity, the plaintiff bears a heavy two-part burden. See id. at 1114.

Sigman v. Town of Chapel Hill

161 F.3d 782 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Dec 2, 1998

the scope of their employment insofar as their conduct does not breach “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … Because qualified immunity is an immunity from suit, and not merely a defense to liability, courts must scrutinize and dismiss appropriate cases on qualified immunity grounds early in the litigation. See Mitchell v.

DiMarco v. Rome Hospital & Murphy Memorial Hospital

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.

Vaughan v. Cox

316 F.3d 1210 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jan 3, 2003

immunity. … Because Vaughan has alleged a constitutional violation and Deputy Cox has asserted a qualified immunity defense, we must conduct a two-part inquiry. 1 Saucier v.

Amanda Meador, Serah Meador, and Tabetha Meador v. Cabinet for Human Resources, Marian McKinney and John Hoyle

902 F.2d 474 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 21, 1990

In its appellate brief, the Cabinet raises the defenses of sovereign immunity and qualified immunity. With respect to the qualified immunity issue, it relies upon Eugene D. by and through Olivia D. v. … state officials qualified immunity from suit.

Bishop Paiute Tribe v. County Of Inyo

291 F.3d 549 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jan 4, 2002

Finally, we find that neither the District Attorney nor the Sheriff is entitled to qualified immunity because they violated clearly established law by executing a warrant outside of their jurisdiction. … On review of a denial of a motion to dismiss based on qualified immunity, we have jurisdiction only to decide if defendant's conduct violated clearly established constitutional rights. Pelletier v.

Crooker v. Variale

Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Nov 8, 1995

Qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions from liability for civil damages so long as their conduct "does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … First, if the right asserted by the plaintiff was "clearly established" at the time of its alleged violation, we are required to assume that the right was recognized by the defendant official; second, we will deny the immunity

Cloninger v. Porter

52 F. App'x 333 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Nov 22, 2002

(“Porter”), William Mike Patterson (“Patterson”), and Clark County, Nevada, and the court’s grant of summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds in favor of Porter and Patterson on the § 1983 claims for which they are … We review a district court’s grant of summary judgment and decision regarding qualified immunity de novo. See Sorrels v. McKee, 290 F.3d 965, 969 (9th Cir.2002).

Garcia v. Escalante

551 F. App'x 463 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Mar 11, 2014

Analysis “Qualified immunity shields 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 … Defendants also argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity because the applicable law was not clearly established at the time of Plaintiffs arrest and prosecution.

Charles Peter Allison v. Donald N. Snyder, Jr., Mark S. Carich, and Michael L. Holmes

332 F.3d 1076 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jun 19, 2003

The answer is no; it is not clearly established (indeed, it is not the law) that self-accusatory programs and polygraph machines are forbidden when treating sex offenders. … The three appellants prevail on the merits, without any need for qualified immunity. Reversed.

Kenrick Christopher v. State of Florida

449 F.3d 1360 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · May 26, 2006

McWhorter, 906 F.2d at 677 ; See Fed.R.Civ.P. 61 (setting out substantial justice standard). 4 Plaintiffs counsel argues the quoted portion of its closing argument did not clearly violate the qualified immunity order, because … But the district court had already granted Defendants qualified immunity for this conduct, ruling that it *1367 was not clearly excessive. 6 As the case was to be tried, given the district court order, Defendants could only

Carlson v. Midway R-1 School District

53 F.3d 878 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Apr 28, 1995

Under traditional rules for deciding First Amendment retaliation claims, Carlson must prove that his speech or actions were protected by the First Amendment, the defendants knew that he had a clearly established right to … In affirming the denial of qualified immunity, we express no opinion on the merits of Carlson’s claims.

Norvis Harmon v. Dallas County, Texas

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jul 9, 2019

Next, he argues the district court erred in granting Evans qualified immunity on his First Amendment retaliation claim because his right to engage in the speech at issue was clearly established at the time of his termination … After ordering supplemental briefing on this point, the district court held that the law regarding Harmon’s speech was not clearly established at the time of his termination and thus Evans was entitled to qualified immunity

Neil Grenning v. Maggie Miller-Stout

739 F.3d 1235 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jan 16, 2014

Qualified Immunity The district court did not consider the question of qualified immunity because it granted summary judgment to Defendants on the merits. … However, before denying qualified immunity to prison officials, we must determine whether the party asserting the injury has sufficiently alleged a constitutional violation, and whether the right violated was clearly established

Robert Lickiss v. Mary Drexler, Formerly the Sheriff of Tazewell County, and Ralph Hodgson, Sheriff of Tazewell County

141 F.3d 1220 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jun 30, 1998

“Because qualified immunity is immunity from suit, not merely a defense to liability, and effectively is lost if a case erroneously is permitted to go to trial, the denial of qualified immunity is a final appealable order … Therefore his clearly established due process rights were denied. Muscare v. Quinn, 520 F.2d 1212 (7th Cir.1975). The balancing test of Pickering v.

Havlish v. Taliban; Aliganga v. Taliban

Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Mar 19, 2026

should attach in civil litigation, which clearly belongs to the Judiciary. … should attach … clearly belongs to the Judiciary.”