Case law

Copelan v. Ferry County

326 F. App'x 989 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jun 8, 2009

Sheriff Warner is entitled to qualified immunity from § 1983 liability because the facts demonstrate that his conduct violated no clearly established constitutional right of Copelan. See Pearson v. … Accordingly, Sheriff Warner is entitled to qualified immunity. AFFIRMED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Gerardo Serrano v. U.S. Customs and Border

975 F.3d 488 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Sep 16, 2020

Alternatively, Espinoza argued that he is entitled to qualified immunity because he did not violate any clearly established constitutional right. … are entitled to qualified immunity.

Copelan v. Ferry County

326 F. App'x 989 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jun 8, 2009

Sheriff Warner is entitled to qualified immunity from § 1983 liability because the facts demonstrate that his conduct violated no clearly established constitutional right of Copelan. See Pearson v. … Accordingly, Sheriff Warner is entitled to qualified immunity. AFFIRMED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Gable v. Lewis

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jan 13, 2000

Second, he argues that the defendant is entitled to qualified immunity because the “constitutional right [asserted] must be clearly established in a particularized sense” under Anderson v. … removed from the Ohio State Highway Patrol’s referral list.1 Hence the doctrine of official immunity is inapplicable, and And if the rule announced today was not clearly established the jury verdict should not be

Aponte-Matos v. Toledo-Davila

Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Feb 4, 1998

If the first level of the analysis yields a determination that the asserted constitutional right was not clearly established at the relevant time, then we need not proceed to the second prong; there is qualified immunity. … We thus held that defendant officials' failure to identify themselves to the plaintiff s decedent in 1990 did not violate a "clearly established law," and the defendants were "entitled to qualified immunity on [the failure

Smith v. McCord

Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Feb 15, 2013

But when the officers moved for summary judgment claiming qualified immunity, Mr. Smith’s attorney did not respond. … His response brief failed even to include the terms “qualified immunity” or “clearly established.”

Fishbein Ex Rel. Fishbein v. City of Glenwood Springs

469 F.3d 957 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Nov 22, 2006

If they did not, they are not entitled to -6- qualified immunity. … Once executive-branch officers assert a qualified immunity defense, the burden shifts to the plaintiffs to demonstrate that the officers (1) violated a federal right (2) that was clearly established at the time of the incident

Feist v. Simonson

222 F.3d 455 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jul 25, 2000

The district court denied Simonson's motion for summary judgment on the ground of qualified immunity. … established law, a qualified immunity defense will ordinarily fail, since a reasonable government actor should or would have known the law governing his conduct was a constitutional principle supported by clearly established

Johnson v. Rancho Santiago Community College District

623 F.3d 1011 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Oct 8, 2010

Finally, the PSA established a Work Opportunities Pro- gram that required the unions to establish an apprenticeship program for District residents, to encourage the referral and utilization of District residents as workers … Indeed, the plaintiffs clearly could not show that they suffered a depri- vation of their purported right to an education, as they have all graduated. We accordingly reject this claim.

Llaguno v. Mingey

739 F.2d 1186 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jul 10, 1984

Appellants contend that since the officers should have known that their acts violated clearly established constitutional standards of probable cause, the defense of qualified immunity is unavailable to them as a matter of … Therefore, in view of the clearly established nature of the rights involved and the undisputed facts surrounding their conduct, qualified immunity is unavailable to the officers as a matter of law.

Bailey White v. Hamilton Cnty. Gov't

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · May 18, 2023

Riley has not shown that Goforth violated her clearly established Fourth Amendment rights, so Goforth is entitled to qualified immunity on this claim. First Amendment. … He is entitled to qualified immunity on the First Amendment claim. *** We REVERSE the district court’s denial of qualified immunity to Goforth.

Johnson Ex Rel. Estate of Cano v. Holmes

455 F.3d 1133 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jul 26, 2006

In order to defeat a qualified immunity defense, “a plaintiff must show that (1) the official violated a constitutional or statutory right; and (2) the constitutional or statutory right was clearly established when the … In this case, the parties agree that the allegations are based on clearly established law .

Martinez v. Mafchir

35 F.3d 1486 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Sep 27, 1994

With respect to the substantive due process claim, the district court determined that defendants were entitled to qualified immunity because their actions did not violate any clearly established constitutional right. … “Qualified immunity is a question of law and the standard of review is de novo.” Yvonne L. v. New Mexico Dep’t of Human Servs., 959 F.2d 883 , 891 (10th Cir.1992).

Woodwind Estates, Ltd. v. W. J. Gretkowski

205 F.3d 118 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Feb 28, 2000

Accordingly, the defense of qualified immunity is not available to the supervisor defendants in the instant matter. See, e.g., Blanche Rd. Corp. v. … Nonetheless, we conclude that the planning commissioners are not entitled to qualified immunity for similar reasons as those discussed above.

Steve Rollins, a Minor, by Kathleen Agosta, His Mother and Next Friend v. John R. Farmer and the City of Omaha, a Municipal Corporation

731 F.2d 533 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Apr 2, 1984

immunity. 2 See generally S. … Under the doctrine of good faith immunity, officials are shielded from liability for civil damages "insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person

Entergy, Arkansas, Inc., an Arkansas Corporation Entergy Gulf States, Inc., a Texas Corporation Entergy Louisiana, Inc., a Louisiana Corporation Wolf Creek Nuclear Operating Corporation, a Delaware Corporation Omaha Public Power District, a Public Corporation and Political Subdivision of the State of Nebraska, Central Interstate Low-Level Radioactive Waste Compact Commission, Us Ecology, Inc., a California Corporation, Intervenor v. State of Nebraska, Department of Environmental Quality, Nebraska Randolph Wood, Individually and in His Official Capacity Jay Ringenberg, Individually and in His Official Capacity Nebraska Department of Health and Human Services Regulation & Licensure David P. Schor, Individually and in His Official Capacity Cheryl Rogers, Individually and in Her Official Capacity John Doe Jane Doe Doe Companies 1 Through 20, Individually and in Their Official Capacities, Entergy, Arkansas, Inc., an Arkansas Corporation Entergy Gulf States, Inc., a Texas Corporation Entergy Louisiana, Inc., a Louisiana Corporation Wolf Creek Nuclear Operating Corporation, a Delaware Corporation Omaha Public Power District, a Public Corporation and Political Subdivision of the State of Nebraska, Central Interstate Lo-Level Radioactive Waste Compact Commission, Us Ecology, Inc., a California Corporation, Intervenor-Appellee v. State of Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality, Nebraska Randolph Wood, Individually and in His Official Capacity Jay Ringenberg, Individually and in His Official Capacity Nebraska Department of Health and Human Services Regulation & Licensure David P. Schor, Individually and in His Official Capacity Cheryl Rogers, Individually and in Her Official Capacity, John Doe Jane Doe Doe Companies 1 Through 20, Individually and in Their Official Capacities

241 F.3d 979 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Mar 8, 2001

to qualified immunity on these claims. … It also never discussed qualified immunity in respect to such claims.

Burns-Toole v. Byrne

11 F.3d 1270 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jan 19, 1994

An action brought under § 1983 against a state actor in his individual capacity, however, is subject to the defense of qualified immunity. … a defendant's defense of qualified immunity.12 To do so, the plaintiff must show that the defendants' conduct was not objectively reasonable and, further, that the defendants violated clearly established law.13

Dodson v. Polk County

628 F.2d 1104 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Aug 26, 1980

A finding of qualified immunity is usually preceded by an inquiry into whether the public official in question enjoyed immunity at common law. … City of Independence, supra, held that municipalities have no qualified immunity under § 1983 for their good-faith constitutional violations.

Yasin Ahmed Farah v. Heather Weyker

926 F.3d 492 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jun 12, 2019

And even assuming the plaintiffs could sue her, she added, she was entitled to qualified immunity because the facts they alleged did not show that she had violated their clearly established constitutional rights. … So we must address the two familiar qualified-immunity questions: assuming Yassin’s allegations are true, did Weyker violate her constitutional rights? And if so, were those rights clearly established? See Hager v. Ark.

Cummisky v. Mines

248 F. App'x 962 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Sep 28, 2007

The district court found that Mines had not violated any of Cummisky’s clearly established constitutional rights and held that Mines was entitled to qualified immunity on the false arrest claim. … Given the underlying purposes of qualified immunity, we require a plaintiff to satisfy a heavy two-part burden to overcome a defendant’s summary judgment motion based on qualified immunity.