Case law

Jose Bueno, Leon Trevino and Victor Alegria, Cross-Appellants v. City of Donna, Cross-Appellees

714 F.2d 484 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Sep 12, 1983

Qualified Immunity The defendants next argue that the trial court erred in not submitting its proposed instruction on the affirmative defense of qualified, or good faith, immunity to the jury. … Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 102 S.Ct. 2727 , 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982), the Supreme Court “adjusted” the qualified immunity standard established by its earlier decisions and dispensed with the subjective test of official good faith

Laura Elkins v. DC

Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Aug 10, 2012

Qualified immunity 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 would have known … The district court denied Williams-Cherry qualified immunity on the ground that it has long been clearly established that seizing items based on a warrant that does not authorize such seizure is unconstitutional.

Chinchello v. Fenton

805 F.2d 126 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Nov 14, 1986

established legal norms. 21 We acknowledge that on these facts the distinction between an "I didn't do it" defense and a qualified immunity defense based on the absence of a clearly established legal duty is not as clear … Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. at 818, 102 S.Ct. at 2738, instructed that qualified immunity is unavailable if the defendant's conduct violated "clearly established ... statutory rights" and, based on Davis v.

Sarah Cox v. B. Alan Sugg

Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Apr 27, 2007

If the district court instead enters an interlocutory order that ignores a timely claim of qualified immunity, our proper course is to remand with instructions to consider the qualified immunity issue. … Qualified immunity protects “government officials performing discretionary functions . . . from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights

Elgin Haynie v. County of Los Angeles Los Angeles County Sheriff Lee Baca David Mertens Jensen, Deputies, in Their Personal and Official Capacities

339 F.3d 1071 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Aug 12, 2003

The appellees claim that their actions are protected under qualified immunity. … Because we conclude that Haynie has failed to allege facts sufficient to establish a violation of any constitutional right, “there is no necessity for further inquiries concerning qualified immunity.”

Moreno v. Baca

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Dec 8, 2005

The court denied the deputies’ motion for summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds, holding that More- no’s constitutional right to be free from suspicionless searches was “clearly established” at the time of the detention … Appellants’ first argument in favor of qualified immunity — that it was not clearly established that Moreno had any right to be free from suspicionless searches because of his parole status and his outstanding arrest warrant

Lillian J. Del Carmen Franco-De Jerez v. Filomeno Burgos

876 F.2d 1038 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Jun 2, 1989

Our discussion is perhaps rather lengthy, because we do not base our decision on the defense of qualified immunity. A. October 1-2. … First, Burgos did not plead qualified immunity as an affirmative defense. See p. 1040, supra.

Blankenship v. Manchin

Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Dec 20, 2006

Finding a constitutional vio- lation of a clearly established right, the district court denied the appli- cation of qualified immunity. This appeal followed. II. … As Blankenship’s complaint alleges a constitutional violation of a clearly established right, qualified immunity does not attach to the Governor’s actions.

Iacobucci v. Town of Pembroke

Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Oct 4, 1999

"Hence, state officials <br>exercising discretionary authority are entitled to qualified <br>immunity insofar as their conduct does not transgress clearly <br>established constitutional or federal statutory rights of which … clearly established when the defendant acted.

Milton Batiste v. Paul v. Burke

746 F.2d 257 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Nov 12, 1984

Given this, Burke argued, he was entitled to immunity because his actions violated no “clearly established statutory or constitutional [right] of which a reasonable person would have known.” … Batiste responded to the motion, arguing as to the affirmative defense of immunity only that his constitutional rights were, in fact, clearly established.

Brett Horvath v. City of Leander, Texas

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jan 13, 2020

The qualified immunity doctrine imposes a similar “clearly established” standard in § 1983 cases—but without any corresponding textual basis. … Yet two federal courts held that it was not “clearly established” at the time of the violation and granted qualified immunity. Id.

Pedro L. Rodriguez-Pinto v. Cirilo Tirado-Delgado

982 F.2d 34 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Jan 5, 1993

To establish such a right, “a person clearly must have more that an abstract need or desire for it. [S/h]e must have more than a unilateral expectation of it. … The doctrine of qualified immunity shields governmental officials performing discretionary functions from liability for civil damages when their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights

Schwartz v. Pridy

94 F.3d 453 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Aug 26, 1996

The court concluded that Schwartz had not alleged a violation of a clearly established constitutional right and that summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity was therefore warranted. 14 We review the district court's … Pridy and Keck are entitled to qualified immunity unless they violated Schwartz's " 'clearly established' constitutional rights." Prosser v. Ross, 70 F.3d 1005, 1007 (8th Cir.1995) (quoting Harlow v.

Harrison & Burrowes Bridge Constructors, Inc. v. Cuomo

981 F.2d 50 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Dec 2, 1992

The trial court ruled defendants were shielded from suit under the doctrine of qualified immunity. … Qualified immunity protects government officials performing discretionary functions from suit and liability for damages for actions taken in their official capacity, unless their conduct violated clearly established rights

Eugene Boice, John Di Palermo, and Robert Wahrman v. Unisys Corporation

50 F.3d 1145 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Mar 23, 1995

If so, is the immunity absolute or qualified? The district court (Con. G. … Unisys turned over pre-existing expense vouchers that clearly responded to the subpoena’s description.

Goldman Ex Rel. Goldman v. Bosco

120 F.3d 53 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Aug 27, 1997

In Chevron, the Court held that, as a threshold matter, "the decision to be applied nonretroactively must establish a new principle of law ... by deciding an issue of first impression whose resolution was not clearly foreshadowed … There is no immunity accorded the active wrongdoer by the [Mississippi Sovereign Immunity Act].

Toni Mitchell v. Steve Conrad

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · May 14, 2026

Page 4 claims, and various state-law immunities—specifically, qualified official immunity, self-defense, and defense of others. … The district court granted Arnold qualified immunity on the § 1983 claims because plaintiffs had failed to demonstrate that Arnold violated clearly established federal law.

Ricky J. Rapier v. Sheriff William Harris, Jail Commander Jon Marvel, Correctional Officer Ray Higginbotham

172 F.3d 999 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Apr 19, 1999

Rapier’s favor, however, we must conclude that the defendants enjoy qualified immunity. … On the other hand, when the law is clearly established at a level of sufficient specificity, a government official may not rely on qualified immunity.

Sause v. Bauer

585 U.S. 957 · Supreme Court of the United States · Jun 28, 2018

The petition argues that it was clearly established that law enforcement agents violate a person’s right to the free exercise of religion if they interfere, without any legiti- mate law enforcement justification, when a person … Without considering these matters, neither the free exer- cise issue nor the officers’ entitlement to qualified immun- ity can be resolved.

Springer v. Henry

435 F.3d 268 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jan 18, 2006

Springer moved for partial summary judgment on the ground that his speech was protected by the First Amendment, and argued that Henry was not entitled to qualified immunity because his First Amendment right was clearly established … Springer’s right to speak on various problems confronting hospital administration was clearly established.