Case law

Butler v. City of Sacramento

365 F. App'x 749 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Feb 11, 2009

I Perez is entitled to qualified immunity unless (1) the facts, viewed in the light most favorable to Butler, demonstrate a violation of a constitutional right and (2) that right was clearly established at the time of the … entitled to qualified immunity.

Milligan v. City of Slidell

226 F.3d 652 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Oct 5, 2000

unless their conduct was unreasonable in light of clearly established law. … In a qualified immunity case, a court often initially decides whether the facts establish a violation of a constitutional right at all. See Wilson v.

Russo v. City Of Bridgeport

479 F.3d 196 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Feb 27, 2007

inquiry and assess whether these officers are entitled to qualified immunity as a matter of law. … Perrill, 916 F.2d 1392 , 1398 n. 11 (9th Cir.1990) (noting that the only issue before it with respect to qualified immunity was "whether there was a clearly established duty to investigate"; that its prior decision in Haygood

Nickel v. Woods

229 F. App'x 432 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Mar 28, 2007

Qualified immunity precludes liability, however, unless “a reasonably well-trained officer in [the defendant’s] position would have known that his [application] failed to establish probable cause and that he should not have … Nickel’s claim fails because Woods is entitled to qualified immunity.

Gary Wall v. James Wade

Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Feb 4, 2014

We also hold that their alleged actions violated the plaintiff’s clearly established rights, and that they are therefore not entitled to qualified immunity. 9 The plaintiff’s claims for equitable relief … We conclude that, given Wall’s circumstances, his right to participate in Ramadan was clearly established, and the defendants are therefore not entitled to qualified immunity.

Leland Patzner v. Joyce Burkett A/K/A Joyce McLaughlin Deborah Myerchin and Stutsman County, North Dakota, a Political Subdivision

779 F.2d 1363 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Dec 26, 1985

challenges the district court’s conclusion that the deputies were shielded by qualified immunity from liability for making the warrantless arrest. … The district court did not reach this issue, since it ruled the deputies immune from suit for *1368 the arrest under the doctrine of qualified immunity. We discuss the immunity issue infra. 6 .

Anthony Jones v. Dr. Mary Flannigan and Dr. Vallabhaneni

14 F.3d 604 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jan 20, 1994

Qualified immunity protects government officials from liability for discretionary conduct if they did not violate "clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known" at " … This court recently held that these pre-Harper procedures to administer medication involuntarily to prisoners did not violate clearly established constitutional rights, and therefore, state officials were entitled to qualified

Sullivan, Jeffrey J. v. Bornemann, Jon

Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Sep 14, 2004

“[T]he first inquiry must be whether a constitutional right would have been violated on the facts alleged; second, assuming the violation is established, the question whether the right was clearly established must be considered … established, or if the officers were entitled to qualified immunity.

John Doe v. Adam Gray

75 F.4th 710 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jul 28, 2023

“The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials from liability for civil damages insofar as their con- duct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitu- tional rights of which a reasonable person … Conclusion The defendants are entitled to qualified immunity, as there is no clearly established right to privacy in one’s sexual preference or gender identity during a criminal or child wel- fare investigation.

Tarla Makaeff v. Trump University, LLC

736 F.3d 1180 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Nov 27, 2013

a particular constitutional right was clearly established at the time of the alleged governmental misconduct. … Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (1982), courts must determine whether the law the defendant allegedly violated was “clearly established.” Id. at 818.

Marcus Mote v. Debra Walthall

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Aug 31, 2018

immunity as a defense.” 3 The only pure legal question we may answer at the qualified immunity stage is “whether a given course of conduct would be objectively unreasonable in light of clearly established law.” 4 … In reversing the district court’s grant of qualified immunity, the panel noted only that “there is no doubt that [the officer] had a clearly established constitutional right not to be fired for engaging in protected speech

Breakthrough Management Group, Inc. v. Chukchansi Gold Casino & Resort

629 F.3d 1173 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Dec 27, 2010

The district court granted the Tribe’s motion to dismiss, holding that the Tribe was entitled to sovereign immunity and had not clearly waived that immunity by entering into licensing agreements with BMG that contained … Because Indian tribes are sovereign powers, they possess immunity from suit to the extent that Congress has not abrogated that immunity and the tribe has not clearly waived its immunity.

Donald Smith v. Wisconsin Department Of Agriculture, Trade And Consumer Protection

23 F.3d 1134 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · May 2, 1994

Rather, satisfied that the officers had not violated any "clearly established" constitutional right, the court dismissed the complaint against the officers on qualified immunity grounds. Both plaintiffs appeal. 19 IV. … The district court found that the individual officers enjoyed qualified immunity, and dismissed the claims against them because none of their actions violated Smith's clearly established rights. Harlow v.

Whitaker v. Garcetti

486 F.3d 572 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · May 9, 2007

The court ruled that “Defendants are undoubtedly entitled to qualified immunity on this claim, since [the district court’s] constitutional holding obviously was not ‘clearly established’ at the time of the activity.” … “Qualified immunity is ‘an entitle- ment not to stand trial or face the other burdens of litigation.’ The privilege is ‘an immunity from suit rather than a mere defense to liability.’ ” Saucier v.

Rosa Zamora v. Irma Gonzalez Janice Mayfield David Schluter S. Castaneda Jesse Cote

15 F.3d 1095 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jan 11, 1994

Federal officers are entitled to qualified immunity from a Bivens claim if their conduct does not violate a "clearly established" constitutional right of which a reasonable person would have known. … See Harlow, 457 U.S. at 818 . 26 Here, Zamora failed to allege any acts by IRS employees that violated a clearly established constitutional right.

Buckner v. Hollins

983 F.2d 119 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jan 6, 1993

Veltrop moved for summary judgment on both the merits of the claim and on the basis of his asserted qualified immunity. … We agree and affirm the district court’s denial of summary judgment on grounds of qualified immunity.

Mark Toon v. Christopher Zerkle

Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Aug 1, 2024

of a clearly established constitutional right. … With respect to the law, the Kanawha Deputies seem to misunderstand what it means for a right to be “clearly established” to prevent a qualified immunity defense.

Taylor Quinn v. Christopher Zerkle

Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Aug 1, 2024

of a clearly established constitutional right. … With respect to the law, the Kanawha Deputies seem to misunderstand what it means for a right to be “clearly established” to prevent a qualified immunity defense.

Turek v. Saluga

47 F. App'x 746 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Sep 24, 2002

Qualified Immunity for Excessive Force in Handcuffing We review de novo an interlocutory appeal of a denial of summary judgment predicated on a claim of qualified immunity. Mattox v. … best, show a violation of clearly established law.”)

Russell A. Kelm v. C. Hyatt

44 F.3d 415 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jan 18, 1995

Public policy and well established law grant qualified immunity to those government officials who perform discretionary functions and whose conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights. … that were ‘clearly established’ at the time it was taken.”