Case law

Giancola v. West Virginia Department Of Public Safety

830 F.2d 547 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Oct 7, 1987

Qualified immunity shields the officers from awards of damages if their conduct did not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person should have been aware. … While the entities are not entitled to assert a qualified immunity defense, they are not liable under respondeat superior principles.

Horstkoetter v. Department of Public Safety

159 F.3d 1265 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Oct 28, 1998

Often, the court’s determination about whether the right is clearly established turns on the level of generality to be applied. On a very general level, all constitutional rights are clearly established. … Horstkoetter in showing that the law at the time was clearly established. Mr. Horstkoetter cites no other cases in support of his contention that the law was clearly established.

Bellville v. Town of Northboro

375 F.3d 25 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Jul 9, 2004

violation were not clearly established. … Katz, 533 U.S. 194, 201 (2001) ("If no constitutional right would have been violated were the allegations established, there is no necessity for further inquiries concerning qualified immunity."); Wilson v.

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.

Walter SESSIONS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. RUSK STATE HOSPITAL, Defendant-Appellee

648 F.2d 1066 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jun 26, 1981

Unlike Title VII, Section 1981 contains no congressional waiver of the state’s eleventh amendment immunity. … The district court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law do not clearly delineate the various steps in the proof of a Title VII claim.

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

Kenneth J. Haugen v. Rochelle Brosseau, Puyallup Police Department the City of Puyallup

339 F.3d 857 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Aug 4, 2003

It held that, even if the shooting constituted excessive force under the Fourth Amendment, Brosseau had not violated a clearly established right and was therefore protected by qualified immunity. … She is not entitled to immunity if the Fourth Amendment right at issue was clearly established. See id.

Barrie v. Grand County, Utah

119 F.3d 862 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jul 23, 1997

Accordingly, the district court then concluded that qualified immunity and legislative immunity applied. … The Martin court upheld the denial of qualified immunity because Garcia clearly established pretrial detainees share the same protection from deliberate indifference to serious medical needs as convicted inmates.

John Moody v. Michigan Gaming Control Board

790 F.3d 669 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 16, 2015

Whether these rights were clearly established at the time remains a question. We remand the case for further proceedings. Cf. Dominque v. Telb, 831 F.2d 673, 677 (6th Cir. 1987). … It is “clearly established . . . that public employers may not coerce their employees to abdicate their constitutional rights on pain of dismissal . . . .” Clemente v.

Speiser v. Engle

107 F. App'x 459 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 28, 2004

Qualified immunity shields public officials from civil damages if their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. Harlow v. … We address each defendant’s claim of qualified immunity separately. 1.

Stinnett v. Fallon County

72 F. App'x 642 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Aug 5, 2003

rights; and (2) those rights were clearly established. … Huntley cannot be held liable for Houtz’ conduct; to survive Huntley’s claim to qualified immunity Stinnett must point to something that Huntley personally did to violate his clearly established federal rights.

96 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 1656, 96 Daily Journal D.A.R. 2810 Terry F. Newell v. Frank Sauser Lou Easter Sharon Starr, Sgt., Disciplinary Committee Chairperson Tom Reimer, Sgt. Robert Hartzler, Officer of the Spring Creek Correctional Center in Their Individual and Official Capacities

79 F.3d 115 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Mar 11, 1996

Bagley, 988 F.2d 868, 871 (9th Cir.1993). 6 The qualified immunity doctrine protects government officials from liability for civil damages "insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … Analysis of a claim of qualified immunity entails three steps: "(1) the identification of the specific right allegedly violated; (2) the determination of whether that right was so 'clearly established' as to alert a reasonable

Billings v. Madison Metropolitan School District

259 F.3d 807 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Aug 2, 2001

Qualified Immunity An official entitled to qualified immunity is not only immune from personal liability but also from suit. See Saucier v. Katz, 121 S. Ct. 2151, 2156 (2001). … Zabel is entitled to qualified immunity.

Floyd v. City of Kenner

351 F. App'x 890 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Oct 29, 2009

“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.” … of clearly established law.”

Eunice Graves v. Daniel Lioi

930 F.3d 307 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Jul 16, 2019

The district court held in the alternative that Lioi and Russell were entitled to qualified immunity because, even if a violation had occurred, it was not clearly established. … Nonetheless, even if the facts proven during discovery set out a constitutional violation, Lioi and Russell would still have been entitled to qualified immunity because that right was not clearly established.

Saenz v. Heldenfels Bros.

183 F.3d 389 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jul 30, 1999

DISCUSSION To prevail on § 1983 claim against a state official performing a discretionary function, and to overcome the qualified immunity defense, a plaintiff must show that the officer violated “clearly … established . . .

Morgan v. Swanson

627 F.3d 170 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Sep 28, 2011

IV We hold today that the principals are entitled to qualified immunity because clearly established law did not put the constitutionality of their actions beyond debate. … But the Court’s suggestion that generalizations can sometimes clearly establish the law was dicta; the Court did not rest its qualified-immunity decision on such a broad statement.

Sam Friedenberg v. Lane County

68 F.4th 1113 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · May 19, 2023

LANE COUNTY center to remove a case when the United States fails to inform the state court whether the FTCA remedy is available. 42 U.S.C. § 233(l)(2) (establishing that if an action qualifying for immunity under § 233 … The statute, however, clearly establishes that procedural objections become ripe when a defendant files the notice of removal.

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.

John v. Younquist

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Feb 4, 2008

If no constitutional right would have been violated were the allegations established, there is no necessity for further inquiries concerning qualified immunity.” Id. at 200-01. … Even if a reasonable jury might conclude the officer lacked probable cause, the arrest was not contrary to any clearly established law, so the officer was entitled to qualified immunity from a jury trial.