Case law

Holt v. Artis

843 F.2d 242 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Mar 30, 1988

A defendant claiming such qualified or good faith immunity is not required “to prove ... that the conduct alleged did not violate clearly established law.” Id. … I believe the majority misapprehends the law of qualified immunity as applied to the facts of this case.

Drake v. Scott

812 F.2d 395 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Feb 20, 1987

defendant state officials had violated clearly established rights to free speech. … In addition, in the present case the question of qualified immunity itself depends in large part on whether defendants knew or should have known that Drake had a clearly established property interest in the job at the time

Bank of Jackson County v. L. James Cherry Raymond G. Naeyaert

980 F.2d 1354 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jul 27, 1992

In the alternative, the court held that appellees were immune from suit under the qualified immunity doctrine, because any deprivation did not violate BJC’s clearly established constitutional rights. … To the extent that the debarment did work such a deprivation, however, BJC’s rights were not clearly established. Thus, appel-lees are immune from suit under the qualified immunity doctrine.

Petri Antero Ahonen v. Enrique Varela

53 F.3d 337 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · May 3, 1995

II 8 Police officers are immune from suit if (1) the "right" they allegedly violated was not "clearly established" at the time of the violation, or (2) if a reasonable officer would have thought that the defendant's actions … The Fourth Amendment prohibition on the use of excessive force in the course of an arrest is a clearly established right. Hansen v. Black, 885 F.2d 642, 645 (9th Cir. 1989).

Earle v. City of Vail

146 F. App'x 990 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Oct 17, 2005

The doctrine of qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions from individual liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 when their actions do not violate clearly established constitutional rights … Griffin’s conduct did not violate any clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable police officer would have known. Qualified immunity, therefore, shields Griffin from Dr. Earle’s claims.

McCoy v. Hernandez

203 F.3d 371 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Feb 17, 2000

Jury Verdict on Qualified Immunity McCoy argues that the district court erred when it submitted the question of whether the officers were entitled to qualified immunity to the jury. … McCoy contends that only the court may decide the qualified immunity issue.

Springfield Hosp., Inc., Springfield Med. Care Sys., Inc. v. Guzman

28 F.4th 403 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Mar 16, 2022

Reg. at 20,814 (establishing use of SBA Form 2483). … The statute’s plain text clearly delineates that its protections extend only to specific, enumerated benefits or interests.

United States of America, Appellant/cross-Appellee v. Adrian F. Searcy, Appellee/cross-Appellant

284 F.3d 938 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Mar 28, 2002

As the Application Note clearly provides, the burden of proof on this issue is on the defendant. He or she must establish by a preponderance of the evidence a lack of predisposition to commit the crime. … Our duty on this appeal is to apply the law established on the prior appeal, and we believe we have done so.

Joseph v. Shepherd

211 F. App'x 692 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Dec 15, 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 alleged … Bartlett was entitled to qualified immunity. IV.

Johnny M. Young v. Charlie E. Jones, Warden Cos Ii--James E. Carver Co I--Marilyn Gorum

37 F.3d 1457 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Nov 10, 1994

Whether appellees Carver and Gorum are entitled to qualified immunity. IV. … immunity.

Jeremy Rowles v. Curators of the Univ. of MO

983 F.3d 345 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Dec 18, 2020

To survive Appellees’ qualified immunity defense, Rowles must show that Appellees deprived him of a constitutional right and that his -11- constitutional right was clearly established … immunity because Rowles cannot show that he was deprived of a clearly established constitutional right.

McMahon Ex Rel. the Estate of McMahon v. Presidential Airways, Inc.

502 F.3d 1331 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Oct 5, 2007

This means that federal officers are not immune if they violate clearly established constitutional rights and are sued under Bivens. … The government itself, on the other hand, remains immune, even if the right allegedly violated by the officer is clearly established. See Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed.

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).

Eric Draw Rodney Ricks v. City of Lincoln Park, William Kish, III Joseph Lavis Douglas Muncey Mohamed Nasser

491 F.3d 550 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 21, 2007

Only if a constitutional violation has occurred should a reviewing court proceed to determine whether the constitutional right in question was so clearly established at the time of the alleged violation that a reasonable … Accordingly, *557 further inquiries concerning qualified immunity are inappropriate in the instant case. Summers v. Leis, 368 F.3d 881, 888 (6th Cir.2004).

Susan Lynn Roberts v. Charles Timothy Kling

104 F.3d 316 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jan 6, 1997

Further, the court held that defendant was also entitled to qualified immunity. See id. at 89. II. ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY A. … defendant would be entitled to qualified immunity.

DiCesare v. Stuart

12 F.3d 973 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Dec 20, 1993

Qualified immunity ‘ “represents the norm” ’ for executive officers, so when a prosecutor ‘functions as an.adminis-. trator rather than as an officer of the court’ he is entitled only to qualified immunity.” Id. … The district attorneys, therefore, are entitled only to qualified immunity for the act of issuing the notice of sale.

Wearry v. Foster

52 F.4th 258 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Oct 27, 2022

The basic question is “whether particular actions of government officials fit within a common-law tradition of absolute immunity, or only the more general standard of qualified immunity.” Id. … No. 20-30406 challenged violation is pre-indictment or investigatory, then the prosecutor may claim at best qualified immunity.

Miller, III v. Compton

122 F.3d 1094 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Aug 12, 1997

Officer Sartor is therefore immune from Miller's suit unless, "first, the law he violated was clearly established at the time of the violation, and second, the applicability of the law to his particular action was evident … Accordingly, Officer Sartor is entitled to qualified immunity for Miller's claims. 39 C.

Estate of Tomas Beauford v. Correct Care Solutions

Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · May 25, 2022

The doctrine of qualified immunity shields government officials from liability where “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have … Clearly Established Law We now turn to the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis.

John Cruz v. City of Spokane

66 F.4th 1193 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Apr 28, 2023

Specifically, (a) does the provision grant immunity for even intentional torts, and (b) can acts committed with unlawful intent qualify as “official acts performed in the course of . . . duties”? … Therefore, Cruz argues that further discovery regarding, for example, discriminatory or retaliatory intent and any departures from established policies and procedures may establish a genuine dispute of material fact.