Case law

Chelios v. Heavener

520 F.3d 678 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Mar 21, 2008

Qualified Immunity The doctrine of qualified immunity shields from liability public officials *691 who perform discretionary duties. Belcher v. Norton, 497 F.3d 742, 749 (7th Cir.2007). … A plaintiff may discharge the burden of showing that the constitutional right was clearly established by showing that there is “a clearly analogous case establishing a right to be free from the specific conduct at issue”

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.

Denise Chavez v. Arte Publico Press

59 F.3d 539 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Aug 1, 1995

As the Court’s decisions now stand, the University’s claim of sovereign immunity must fail, although its employee Kanellos prevails on qualified immunity. … The University moved to dismiss on behalf of itself and Kanellos for failure to state a claim, resting inter alia, on Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity. Kanellos also asserted his qualified immunity.

Thomas v. Hungerford

23 F.3d 1450 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · May 11, 1994

Griss appeals from the district court's denial of his motion for summary judgment 1 on the basis of qualified immunity and absolute witness immunity. We reverse and remand. … II. 6 Qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions from liability for civil damages unless their conduct violates "clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable

Mariana v. Fisher

338 F.3d 189 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jul 30, 2003

That immunity is so potent that it protects petitioning notwithstanding an improper purpose or motive. Id. 27 The doctrine was first established in E.R.R. Presidents Conference v. … Midcal Aluminum, Inc., 445 U.S. 97 , 100 S.Ct. 937 , 63 L.Ed.2d 233 (1980). 263 F.3d at 259 . 49 To qualify as state action under the Midcal test, the challenged restraint must, first, be one that is "`clearly articulated

Raymond A. Berg, Jr. v. County of Allegheny Allegheny County Adult Probation Services Debbie Benton Richard R. Gardner Glenn Allen Wolfgang Ginny Demko

219 F.3d 261 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jul 17, 2000

Unless historical facts are in dispute, qualified immunity is a matter for the court. See id. at 828. … Briggs, 475 U.S. 335, 345 (1986)). 30 A government official is entitled to qualified immunity if his "conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have

Sorey ex rel. Sorey v. Kellett

849 F.2d 960 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jul 18, 1988

Qualified immunity, the Court held, shared that characteristic of absolute immunity. … The court held that the commissioners were protected by qualified immunity because they had “no role in the roommate selection or supervision of ‘clients’,” but merely exercised discretionary authority over the establishment

Wade Robertson v. Rise Pichon

849 F.3d 1173 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Mar 2, 2017

“The starting point for cases subject to § 2254(d)(1).is to identify the ‘clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States.’” Marshall v. … Clearly established federal law is limited to “the holdings, as opposed to the dicta, of [the Supreme] Court’s decisions,” Woods v.

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.

Clyde M. Lawson v. Andrew Hulm

Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Aug 18, 2000

We conclude that the Troopers were entitled to qualified immunity in this case. … alleged right is clearly established; and (3) raise[d] a genuine issue of fact as to whether the official would have known that his alleged conduct would have violated the plaintiff's clearly established right."

Butera v. District of Columbia

235 F.3d 637 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jan 9, 2001

Alternatively, the District of Columbia contends that the officers are enti- tled to qualified immunity because, even if Eric and Terry Butera could assert substantive due process rights, it was not clearly established … violates a clearly established right.

Tennison v. Sanders

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Dec 8, 2008

The Inspectors moved for summary judgment on the basis of absolute and qualified immunity. … If no constitutional right would have been violated were the allegations established, there is no necessity for further inquiries concerning qualified immunity.

Martinez v. Hinojosa

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jun 4, 2026

As a result, the court held that Officer Hinojosa was entitled to qualified immunity, and all municipal liability was foreclosed. 4 Mr. … Qualified immunity, though, protects those government officials from liability under Section 1983, “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights.” Trammel v.

Spencer v. Sutterfield

66 F. App'x 569 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · May 28, 2003

In actions seeking damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 , qualified immunity protects a public official from *573 being sued as long as the official “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … , if so, whether that constitutional right was so clearly established that a reasonable official would understand that the particular conduct would violate that right.

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.

Jack R. Harper v. Arden Mays Merckle

638 F.2d 848 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Mar 5, 1981

Moreover, as the facts clearly establish, Harper did not visit Judge Merckle “in his official capacity.” … Instead, we instruct the trial judge to so charge the jury on retrial of this case, providing the defendant asserts the defense of qualified immunity. V.

Donald Delade v. John Cargan

972 F.3d 207 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Aug 25, 2020

But it declined to grant summary judgment or qualified immunity to Cargan on DeLade’s Fourteenth Amendment claim. Cargan timely appealed. … a constitutional right that is clearly established.

Singh v. Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Massachusetts, Inc.

308 F.3d 25 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Aug 27, 2002

-15- quintessential legal question: whether the rights at issue are clearly established. See Anderson v. … As already noted, pursuant to Supreme Court precedents, a state official is immune from suit under § 1983 when his "conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable

Bressi v. Ford

575 F.3d 891 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Aug 4, 2009

We leave to the district court to address in the first instance any claims of qualified immunity that may be asserted by any of the Officers with regard to the roadblock. 2. … It held that, even if the stop was determined to be unlawful and to taint the probable cause for the arrest, this principle was not clearly established law at the time of the arrest.

Chester Russ v. Paul Uppah, Rod Cozzetto, and John R. Enright

972 F.2d 300 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jul 29, 1992

Thus, Upah is entitled to only qualified immunity for at least some of his actions. … If these allegations were true, qualified immunity would not protect Upah.