Case law

Sawyer v. Creek County

908 F.2d 663 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jul 18, 1990

Ramirez argues that Leona Sawyer has pled insufficient facts to overcome Ramirez's absolute and qualified immunity from suit. 1 4 We turn first to Ramirez's claim of qualified immunity. … Unlike other affirmative defenses, qualified immunity is not merely a defense to liability; it is also an immunity from suit.

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.

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.

Kewon English v. Joseph Clarke

90 F.4th 636 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Jan 5, 2024

As to the First Amendment claim, the court held that the defendants were entitled to qualified immunity because a First Amendment right to be free from state compelled speech had not been clearly established … We have no jurisdiction to make a determination as to qualified immunity when important facts remain unsettled.

Young v. County of Los Angeles

655 F.3d 1156 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Aug 26, 2011

immunity by assessing whether “the right at issue was clearly established at the time of defendant’s alleged misconduct.” … See Hope, 536 U.S. at 741 (holding that factually identical precedents are not required for law to be clearly established for qualified immunity pur- poses).

Hall v. Ekpe

408 F. App'x 385 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Oct 13, 2010

Allen, 502 F.3d 1255, 1275 (11th Cir.2007) (same), as well as defendants’ ability to claim qualified immunity under RLUIPA, see Redd v. … To the extent Hall sues defendants in their individual capacities, defendants would, in any event, be entitled to summary judgment on the ground of qualified immunity because, although it was clearly established at the time

Alexander v. Estepp

95 F.3d 312 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Sep 5, 1996

The plaintiffs may overcome this qualified immunity only if they can demonstrate that the defendants' conduct violated "clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. … Thus we believe that the individual defendants have not established their entitlement to qualified immunity because case law (about which a reasonable official would have known) had clearly established by 1993 and 1994 that

Lopkoff v. Slater

Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Dec 6, 1996

A government official is entitled to qualified immunity from civil damages for performing discretionary functions when his “conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … Defendants raised the defense of qualified immunity, thus placing on plaintiffs the “heavy burden” to demonstrate that defendants violated clearly established law. Hannula v.

Kern v. Clark County

231 F. App'x 622 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · May 3, 2007

Until a specific substantive due process right is recognized or clearly established in this circuit, officials are entitled to qualified immunity from such claims alleging a violation of such a right as a matter of law. … Fox is entitled to qualified immunity because no constitutional violation occurred. Squaw Valley Dev. Co. v. Goldberg, 375 F.3d 936, 943 (9th Cir.2004).

Pratt v. Snohomish County

15 F.3d 1088 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Dec 16, 1994

Whether the defendants are immune from suit under this theory of liability depends on whether "a reasonable officer in [their] position could have believed, in light of clearly established legal principles," 1 Act Up! … Omission of these critical facts deprived the defendants of qualified immunity.

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.

Moore v. County of Delaware

586 F.3d 219 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Nov 2, 2009

Appellants moved for summary judgment in their favor, contending that even if Moore’s constitutional rights had been violated by the search, the Deputy Sheriffs were entitled to qualified immunity. … Appellants again moved for summary judgment, the district court again denied that motion, and this Court again reversed, finding that appellants were entitled to qualified immunity and the entry of judgment in their favor

Guzman Rivera v. Rivera Cruz

Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Oct 28, 1996

"Unless the plaintiff's allegations state a claim of violation of clearly established law, a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal before the commencement of discovery." Mitchell v. … P. 56 states that defendants may move for summary judgment "at any time," we do not believe that this precludes us from establishing some limits to the ability of defendants to use the protection of qualified immunity to

Howell v. Burden

12 F.3d 190 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jan 21, 1994

the close of evidence, the district court granted Burden’s Rule 50 motion for judgment as a matter' of law. 1 THE FIRST APPEAL In the first appeal we addressed the issue of qualified immunity for Burden: The issue'of qualified … We held that it was clearly established in 1984 that an official’s denial of or delay in obtaining proper treatment could constitute deliberate indifference. Id.

Ben Ezra, Weinstein, & Co. v. America Online Inc.

206 F.3d 980 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Mar 14, 2000

The district court concluded that the undisputed evidence established Defendant never produced or created any of the allegedly inaccurate information. … The district court, however, concluded that Defendant qualified for statutory immunity pursuant to § 230.

Robert Taylor v. Ricky Hughes

26 F.4th 419 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Feb 16, 2022

The bottom line there was not that the search was reasonable, but only that the executing officer acted in good faith and was entitled to qualified immunity: no case clearly established that he “could not proceed to search … An officer who makes an arrest is entitled to qualified immun- ity if “a reasonable officer could have believed [the] arrest to be lawful, in light of clearly established law and the 24

Cordova v. Aragon

569 F.3d 1183 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jun 17, 2009

Was the Law Clearly Established? Even if Mr. Cordova’s Fourth Amendment rights were violated, Officer Aragon is still entitled to qualified immunity if the right was not clearly established. See Christensen v. … Municipal Liability Though we hold that Officer Aragon is shielded from liability on the grounds that; even if a constitutional violation occurred, the law was not clearly established, the same qualified immunity analysis

Sanders v. District of Columbia

16 F. Supp. 2d 10 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Aug 10, 1998

Government officials are protected by qualified immunity when they perform discretionary functions and “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would … Accordingly, Barry and Soulsby’s motion to dismiss on qualified immunity grounds is denied. H.

Sherouse v. Ratchner

573 F.3d 1055 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jul 31, 2009

Were this an undisputed fact, Defendants most likely would be entitled to qualified immunity. … however, courts of appeals clearly lack jurisdiction to review summary judgment orders deciding qualified immunity questions solely on the basis of evidence sufficiency—which facts a party may, or may not, be able to prove

Robert M. Jasinski v. R.A. Adams, Joe Mongiello, and United States Border Patrol, Defendants

781 F.2d 843 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Feb 3, 1986

“Unless plaintiff alleges a violation of clearly established law,” defendants are specifically entitled under the doctrine of qualified immunity to dismissal prior to the discovery phase of the case. Id. … Plaintiff alleges a violation of this clearly established rule.