Case law

Central Trust Co. v. Wabash, St. L. & P. Ry. Co.

29 F. 546 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Missouri · Dec 13, 1886

Very clearly this qualifying clause does not refer to that, and therefore it should not be held to qualify the second, unless the obvious intent compels such construction. … Clearly there was consideration for this stipulation.

Van Wyhe v. Reisch

581 F.3d 639 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Sep 10, 2009

or qualified immunity, because immunity “ ‘is effectively lost if a case is erroneously permitted to go to trial.’ ” Pearson v. … Slykhuis and Wagner do not argue that Sisney’s right against retaliation is not clearly established but that their conduct was reasonable and justified, or did not occur as Sisney alleges.

O. v. Ft Bend Indep Sch Dist

2 F.4th 407 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jun 17, 2021

immunity protects government officials from civil damages liability when their actions could reasonably have been believed to be legal.”8 Once the defense of qualified immunity has been asserted, the plaintiff has … To defeat a claim of qualified immunity, the illegality of the conduct must be “clearly established” at the time it took place.35 It is certainly true that “[b]y now, every school teacher . . . must know that inflicting

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.”)

Perry, Rixson M. v. Sheahan, Michael

222 F.3d 309 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jul 21, 2000

Our analysis begins with the well-established proposition that government officials performing discretionary functions are entitled to qualified immunity from liability for civil damages unless their conduct violates clearly … Because the conduct alleged in the complaint *316 would violate the clearly-established right against unreasonable seizures, we reverse the district court’s dismissal of the damages claims on the grounds of qualified immunity

Jeffrey L. Atterberry v. Leonard Sherman, John Coghlan, Emmons Russell, and Robert Hewson

453 F.3d 823 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jul 7, 2006

The district court found the state actors were entitled to qualified immunity. For similar reasons, we agree, and affirm. I. HISTORY Atterberry has worked for the DPR since 1984. … In any event, we need not resolve this issue because qualified immunity, the main focus of the parties’ arguments, more clearly leads us to find in favor of the state actors.

Montanez v. Secretary Pennsylvania Department of Corrections

773 F.3d 472 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Aug 15, 2014

“Qualified immunity shields government officials from suit even if their actions were unconstitutional as long as those' officials’ actions ‘d[id] not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … Therefore, qualified immunity applies. The fact that the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity on Hale’s damages claim does not prevent this case from moving forward on Hale’s claim for injunctive relief.

Hussein v. City of Perrysburg

617 F.3d 828 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 20, 2010

After concluding that the rights at issue were clearly established, the court denied Klag and Thielen’s contention that they were entitled to qualified immunity. Id. at 856-57. … Klag and Thielen now appeal, arguing that they are entitled to qualified immunity because their actions did not violate the Husseins’ due process rights.

Roldan-Plumey v. Cerezo-Suarez

Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Jun 4, 1997

"Qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions from civil liability for money damages when their conduct does not violate 'clearly established' statutory authority or constitutional rights … In earlier political discrimination cases, we found defendants entitled to qualified immunity because their allegedly unconstitutional actions took place prior to the development of clearly established law in this area.

Lloyd v. Housing Authority Of The City Of Kirksville

58 F.3d 398 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jul 6, 1995

Lloyd's transfer from a two-bedroom to a one-bedroom apartment based on Lloyd's changed family composition was lawful in light of clearly established law. … Because Hamilton's right to qualified immunity depends on the resolution of conflicting evidence about the circumstances surrounding Lloyd's transfer, we cannot decide the qualified immunity issue on summary judgment.

Marshall v. Sullivan

105 F.3d 47 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Oct 17, 1996

Jones, --- U.S. at ----, 115 S.Ct. at 2159 . 37 In general, police officers are entitled to qualified immunity if (1) their conduct does not violate clearly established constitutional rights, or (2) it was objectively reasonable … The availability of the defense depends on whether " 'a reasonable officer could have believed' " his action " 'to be lawful, in light of clearly established law and the information [he] possessed.' " Hunter v.

Turner v. Houma Municipal Fire & Police Civil Service Board

229 F.3d 478 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Oct 18, 2000

An exception to this rule exists when the summary judgment motion is premised on a claim of absolute or qualified immunity. See Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 526 (1985). … Courts discuss immunity defenses without clearly articulating to whom and in which capacity those defenses apply,12 resulting in confusion which has an obvious cause.

Rivas-Villegas v. Cortesluna

595 U.S. 1 · Supreme Court of the United States · Oct 18, 2021

Even assuming that con- trolling Circuit precedent clearly establishes law for pur- poses of §1983, LaLonde did not give fair notice to Rivas- Villegas. He is thus entitled to qualified immunity. … “Qualified immunity attaches when an official’s conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitu- tional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” White v. Pauly, 580 U.

Loumiet v. United States

315 F. Supp. 3d 349 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jun 5, 2018

Iqbal , the Supreme Court clearly articulated the concerns surrounding discovery in such cases: "The basic thrust of the qualified-immunity doctrine is to free officials from the concerns of litigation, including 'avoidance … The Supreme Court urges caution where discovery may entangle individuals potentially protected by qualified immunity.

Estate of Daniel Hernandez v. City of Los Angeles

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Mar 21, 2024

CITY OF LOS ANGELES qualified immunity because McBride did not violate clearly established law. … Because McBride did not violate clearly established law in firing her third volley of shots, we conclude that she is entitled to qualified immunity.

Dodd v. Jones

623 F.3d 563 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Oct 18, 2010

Because the law enforcement officers are entitled to assert a defense of qualified immunity in this § 1983 action, Dodd must show both that the facts construed most favorably to him establish a violation of a constitutional … The absence of a clearly established constitutional duty for the officers to act to protect Dodd under these circumstances is sufficient grounds to affirm the district court’s grant of summary judgment in a qualified immunity

Alvin Ray Cooper v. Sheriff, Lubbock County, Texas

929 F.2d 1078 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Apr 30, 1991

Concerning the qualified immunity defense, the magistrate concluded that Cooper’s allegations “do not state a claim showing a violation of clearly established law.” … B.Qualified Immunity The district court’s qualified immunity analysis was at best premature. Cooper satisfied his obligation to allege sufficient facts in his complaint to overcome the presumption of immunity.

Victor Caminata v. County of Wexford

664 F. App'x 496 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Nov 17, 2016

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity shields a government official from liability unless his conduct violated “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known … To determine whether qualified immunity applies, the court must decide whether Jenkinson’s actions violated Caminata’s constitutional rights, and whether the rights at issue were clearly established at the time of the violation

Denise Schmidt v. Contra Costa County

693 F.3d 1122 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Sep 10, 2012

In most legislative immunity cases, the governmental entity’s authority to act is clearly defined and therefore rarely at issue. See, e.g., Cmty. House, Inc. v. … The Superior Court’s Policy is clearly not an ad hoc decision.

Carlos Rivera-Ramos v. Julio Cesar Roman, Cesar Soto, Carlos Rivera-Ramos v. Julio Cesar Roman, Luis Torres-Massa, Carlos Rivera-Ramos v. Julio Cesar Roman

156 F.3d 276 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Sep 29, 1998

Qualified immunity shields state officials from civil damage liability under section 1983, insofar as their conduct does not violate "clearly established" rights of which "a reasonable person would have known" at the time … and a merits trial. 31 In sum, we conclude that the district court's denial of qualified immunity rested upon a mistakenly abstract view of what is clearly established law and that the case must be remanded for further consideration