Case law

O'Connor v. Huward

117 F.3d 12 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Jun 30, 1997

Qualified immunity II. … "The last opportunity to raise [qualified immunity] is by motion for directed verdict." Lewis v.

Taylor v. MI Dept Nat Res

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Sep 14, 2007

An officer is protected by qualified immunity provided his conduct did not run afoul of a right that is clearly established. … Nevertheless, Rose, in addition to denying a violation of the Fourth Amendment, also raised the affirmative defense of qualified immunity. The district court below found that Rose was entitled to qualified immunity.

Armstrong v. Wilson

124 F.3d 1019 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Aug 27, 1997

Murray, 57 F.3d 1340 (4th Cir.1995), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 116 S.Ct. 772 , 133 L.Ed.2d 724 (1996), in which the Fourth Circuit held that prison officials were entitled to qualified immunity because it was not “clearly established … ELEVENTH AMENDMENT IMMUNITY We next address the defendants’ contention that sovereign immunity bars this suit in federal court.

Frank Howard v. George Adkison and Henry Jackson

887 F.2d 134 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Nov 15, 1989

immunity from Howard’s claims in that their actions did not violate clearly established constitutional rights. … Appellants finally argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity, and are therefore shielded from liability.

Tucker v. Faith Bible Chapel Int'l.

53 F.4th 620 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Nov 15, 2022

For example, absolute immunity and qualified immunity aren’t jurisdictional in district court. See Nevada v. … Though absolute immunity and qualified immunity may trigger the collateral-order doctrine, they are waivable. See Yellen v.

Joseph C. Spagnola, Jr. v. William Mathis, (Two Cases) Joseph C. Spagnola, Jr. v. William Mathis

809 F.2d 16 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jan 6, 1987

It concluded that federal officials would be granted immunity only if “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … Appellants cannot plausibly suggest that a reasonable person would not find these rights to be “clearly established.”

Edwards v. Wallace Community College

49 F.3d 1517 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Apr 19, 1995

Qualified Immunity "[A]n official in a personal-capacity action may, depending on his position, be able to assert personal immunity defenses, [including a defense of qualified immunity … "[G]overnment officials performing discretionary functions, generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or

Kay Electric Cooperative v. City of Newkirk

647 F.3d 1039 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jul 29, 2011

How clearly must a state legislature articulate its authorization of anticompetitive municipal conduct to trigger antitrust immunity? … than a court’s ruling on whether a particular business at a particular time and in a particular place qualifies as a “natural” monopoly.

Aguilera v. Baca

510 F.3d 1161 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Dec 27, 2007

If we answer in the affirmative, we proceed to determine whether that right was “clearly established” such that “it would be clear to a reasonable officer that his conduct was unlawful in the situation he confronted.” … If we determine at the first step that no constitutional violation occurred, the qualified immunity inquiry is at an end. See id. at 201, 121 S.Ct. 2151 .

Gail Stockton v. Milwaukee County, Wisconsin

44 F.4th 605 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Aug 9, 2022

Qualified immunity shields state actors from liability where their conduct “does not vio- late clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Reed v. … Stockton bears the burden of defeating Pias- ecki’s claim to qualified immunity. Taylor v. City of Milford, 10 F.4th 800, 806 (7th Cir. 2021). Stockton may demonstrate a right is “clearly established” in three ways.

Jones v. Edwards

770 F.2d 739 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Aug 20, 1985

We agree and we conclude that appellees are not protected by qualified immunity in the circumstances of this case In Davis v. … Whether an official may prevail in his qualified immunity defense depends upon the "objective reasonableness of [his] conduct as measured by reference to clearly established law."

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.

JAMES TERRELL, AS TRUSTEE FOR THE HEIRS AND NEXT OF KIN OF TALENA TERRELL, — v. BREK ANDREW LARSON SHAWN AARON LONGEN, —

396 F.3d 975 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Mar 23, 2005

Clearly Established Right. 35 Deputy Larson would enjoy qualified immunity if Terrell's substantive due process right was not clearly established as of December 29, 2000, the time of the collision. See Wilson v. … Thus, we conclude the law in effect at the time of the collision was clearly established. Accordingly, we would hold that Larson was not entitled to summary judgment based on qualified immunity. 37 III.

Estate of Wilbert Lee Henson v. Wichita Cou

795 F.3d 456 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jul 28, 2015

violated clearly established law.” … Confronted with a claim of qualified immunity, this court must determine whether the Plaintiffs allege the deprivation of a constitutional right and whether that right was clearly established at the time of the violation.

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.

Robert G. Knoche v. William Wheatley

73 F.3d 364 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Dec 20, 1995

Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, public officials performing discretionary functions are protected against civil liability if "their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights … prosecution). 4 14 Because Wheatley did not violate clearly established constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known, he is entitled to qualified immunity.

Poindexter v. Board of County Commissioners

548 F.3d 916 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Nov 26, 2008

I must, therefore, address the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis and determine if the rights Poindexter alleges were violated were “clearly established” at the time of the alleged violation. … I conclude that Poindexter has adequately alleged violations of clearly established laws, so Huff is not entitled to qualified immunity.

Hampton v. Hanrahan

600 F.2d 600 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Apr 23, 1979

The allegations of plaintiffs in this case clearly complain of official misconduct which is outside the ambit of the doctrine of qualified immunity. … If plaintiffs prove their case against the defendants, the doctrine of qualified immunity will not thwart recovery of damages. The rights which plaintiffs contend that defendants have violated are clearly established.

Mazuz v. State of MD

Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Mar 29, 2006

Tou further argued that he is enti- tled to qualified immunity on the § 1983 cause of action because the law was not clearly established in 2002 that his actions violated the Fourth Amendment and because he acted in good … "If no constitutional right would have been violated were the allegations established, there is no necessity for further inquiries concerning qualified immunity." Id.

Bennett v. Campbell

564 F.2d 329 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Nov 10, 1977

immunity which might insulate them from liability for damages. … Under this qualified immunity doctrine, a government officer performing acts in the course of official conduct is insulated from damage suits only if “(1) at the time and in light of all the circumstances there existed reasonable