Case law

Brian Baude v. Gerald Leyshock

23 F.4th 1065 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jan 27, 2022

“Qualified immunity shields government officials from liability in a § 1983 action unless the official’s conduct violates a clearly established constitutional or statutory right of which a reasonable person would have known … Baude’s right to be free from the alleged types of force was clearly established in September of 2017. See Johnson v.

Jeanne Zaloga v. Borough of Moosic

841 F.3d 170 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Oct 24, 2016

Mercatili now appeals, arguing that he is entitled to qualified immunity because his conduct, even if Zaloga’s allegations are true, did not violate clearly established law. … Under the high standard for “clearly established” law, that is enough to defeat the Plaintiffs’ challenge to qualified immunity. V.

Anmarie Calgaro v. St. Louis County

919 F.3d 1054 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Mar 25, 2019

Nor is it clearly established that parents have a constitutional right to manage all details of their children’s education or to obtain consultation with school officials on everyday … Because existing precedent does not clearly establish the rights that Calgaro asserts, Johnson is entitled to qualified immunity. Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 563 U.S. 731, 741 (2011).

Rochon v. City of Angola,et al

122 F.3d 319 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Sep 24, 1997

The first step is to determine whether the plaintiff has alleged a violation of a clearly established constitutional right. … If the court finds no constitutional injury, it need not address the issue of qualified immunity. Quives v. Campbell, 934 F.2d 668, 671 (5th Cir.1991).

Kishna Brown v. Bradley Lewis

779 F.3d 401 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Feb 26, 2015

“Qualified immunity protects government officials performing discretionary functions unless their conduct violates a clearly established statutory or constitutional right of which a reasonable person in the official's position … Second, the officers seem to interpret Dorsey as establishing additional deference for law-enforcement decision-making, beyond the constitutional and clearly-established prongs of the qualified-immunity

Mathers Ex Rel. J.S.J. v. Wright

636 F.3d 396 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Apr 11, 2011

A state official sued in her individual capacity is entitled to qualified immunity so long as her conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known … We next consider whether the equal protection right at issue was clearly established.

Walter Dartland v. Metropolitan Dade County, a Political Subdivision of the State of Florida, Sergio Pereira

866 F.2d 1321 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Feb 27, 1989

Pereira moved for summary judgment based on qualified immunity. The district court denied the motion. The Supreme Court formed the principle of qualified immunity in Harlow v. … “The words ‘clearly established ... constitutional rights’ may not be used to read the defense of immunity out of federal tort law by the facile expedient of stating constitutional rights in the most general possible terms

Post v. City of Fort Lauderdale

7 F.3d 1552 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Nov 9, 1993

Defendants are, at least, entitled to qualified immunity because no facts before us show defendants violated clearly established law. See Lindsey v. … Hurley is entitled to qualified immunity because Hurley's acts, as established by the record before us, violated no clearly established law. C.

Jane Doe v. Village of Arlington Heights

782 F.3d 911 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Apr 13, 2015

Qualified immunity shields a govern- ment official from liability for damages when the official’s “conduct does not violate ‘clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known … Walker, 740 F.3d 1088, 1095–97 (7th Cir. 2014) (holding that the plaintiff failed to establish a clearly estab- lished right and the district court erred in denying the de- fendants’ motion to dismiss on qualified immunity

Aponte-Matos v. Toledo-Davila

135 F.3d 182 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Feb 4, 1998

Qualified immunity protects both federal and state officials from liability for damages in a civil rights action if "a reasonable officer could have believed [his actions] to be lawful, in light of clearly established … is qualified immunity.

Newell v. Sauser

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

The qualified immunity doctrine protects government officials from liability for civil damages “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … 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

William Lund v. City of Rockford, Illinois

956 F.3d 938 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Apr 20, 2020

But even if Nieves did not apply retroactively, Lund still could not prevail, as the defendant officers were entitled to qualified immunity. … Police officers are entitled to qualified immunity under section 1983 unless they “violated a statutory or constitutional right that was clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct.” Reichle v.

James E. Williams v. Nancy Anderson and S.D. Parwatikar

959 F.2d 1411 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Apr 9, 1992

Thus, in assessing the qualified immunity claims, our concern is whether statutes or caselaw existed in August 1985 to establish clearly that a state prisoner held in a psychiatric unit had a right under the Eighth or Fourteenth … Williams’ claim for damages by the doctrine of qualified immunity; neither Nurse Anderson nor Dr. Parwatikar violated any constitutional right that was clearly established at the time of the incident.

Julian J. Miller v. Albert Gonzalez

761 F.3d 822 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Aug 5, 2014

As will be clear from the discussion that follows, Miller’s right to be free from the type of force Gonzalez applied was “clearly established,” such that Gonzalez is not entitled to qualified immunity. See Abbott v. … And as the cases cited above demonstrate, this was clearly established at the time of Miller’s arrest.

Donald Saucier v. Elliot M. Katz and in Defense of Animals

533 U.S. 194 · Supreme Court of the United States · Jun 11, 2001

This Court does not quarrel with the basic principle that to establish liability under 1962(c) one must allege and prove the existence of two distinct entities: (1) a "person"; and (2) an "enterprise" that is not simply the … We now agree with these Circuits and hold that the Second Circuit's interpretation of 1962(c) is erroneous. 5 We do not quarrel with the basic principle that to establish liability under 1962(c) one must allege and prove

Bond v. City of Tahlequah

981 F.3d 808 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Dec 1, 2020

Qualified Immunity “The doctrine of qualified immunity shields officials from civil liability so long as their conduct ‘does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … Clearly Established Law We have concluded that summary judgment was improper on the first prong of qualified immunity—violation of a constitutional right.

Henry v. Purnell

652 F.3d 524 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Jul 14, 2011

Henry stressed that “[i]t has been clearly established ... … Qualified immunity protects officers who commit constitutional violations but who, in light of clearly established law, could reasonably believe that their actions were lawful. Saucier v.

Richard Betker v. Rodolfo Gomez

692 F.3d 854 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Sep 5, 2012

Qualified immunity shields a government official from liability for civil damages unless his or her conduct violates a clearly established principle or constitutional right of which a reasonable person would have known at … The Lack of Probable Cause Was Clearly Estab- lished at the Time of the Raid The final part of our qualified immunity inquiry is whether the constitutional right at stake “was clearly established at the time of the

Scotto v. Almenas

143 F.3d 105 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · May 5, 1998

Most executive officials receive qualified immunity, whereby “government officials performing discretionary functions ... are shielded from liability ... insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … Qualified Immunity The district court did not. consider, and the parties have not briefed, whether or not Almenas, as alleged by Scotto, violated clearly established constitutional norms of which an objectively reasonable

Sharp v. Johnson

669 F.3d 144 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Feb 9, 2012

The Magistrate Judge also did not err in holding that Defendants were protected by qualified immunity because they did not violate Sharp’s clearly established rights. … A right is clearly established for qualified immunity purposes where its contours are “sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that right.”