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.

Ikechukwu Okorie v. Virginia Crawford

921 F.3d 430 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Apr 12, 2019

Because this detention was less intrusive than the one in Heitschmidt, that case alone does not establish that the “violative nature of this particular conduct is clearly established.” … The consequence, though, is that Okorie is unable to point to caselaw clearly establishing the unlawfulness of this type of detention.

Mannoia, Jeffrey v. Farrow, David G.

Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Feb 7, 2007

In Saucier, the Supreme Court established a two-part test for resolving the issue of qualified immunity. … “Consulting a prosecutor may not give an officer absolute immunity . . . but it goes far to establish qualified immunity.” Kijonka v. Seitzinger, 363 F.3d 645, 648 (7th Cir. 2004).

Amos v. Maryland Dept. of Public Safety

126 F.3d 589 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Sep 22, 1997

We held that qualified immunity barred the prisoner’s claims because it was not clearly established at the time of the alleged violations that the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act applied to state prisons. … We held that qualified immunity barred the prisoner’s claims because it was not clearly established at the time of the alleged violations that the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act applied to state prisons.

Eklund v. City of Seattle Municipal Court

628 F.3d 473 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Nov 24, 2010

Bonner is entitled to qualified immunity if his “ ‘conduct [did] not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’ ” See James v. … Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 , 129 S.Ct. 808, 818 , 172 L.Ed.2d 565 (2009), courts have discretion to grant qualified immunity if the right at issue was not clearly established at the time, without deciding whether there was a

Martin v. Halliburton

618 F.3d 476 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Sep 7, 2010

Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511 (1985),] clearly establishes that an order rejecting the defense of qualified immunity at either the dismissal stage or the summary judgment stage is a ‘final’ judgment subject to immediate appeal.”) … Comision de Contratos del Comite Ejecutivo Gen., 923 F.2d 380, 385 (5th Cir. 1991), and qualified immunity under Title VII, Brown v. Tex.

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.

Dennis W. Ricci v. Captain Michael Urso

974 F.2d 5 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Aug 31, 1992

Rivera-Cruz, 858 F.2d 40, 48 (1st Cir.1988) (“We emphasize, of course, that while we uphold the denial of qualified immunity at this stage in the proceedings, this does not prevent the qualified immunity defense from being … The district court may consider such additional information in reviewing subsequent motions for qualified immunity, keeping in mind that the issue of qualified immunity should ordinarily be resolved, whenever possible, by

Luc Adras v. Alan C. Nelson, Commissioner of Immigration and Naturalization Service

917 F.2d 1552 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Nov 30, 1990

The district court dismissed Count VII upon the finding that defendants were entitled to qualified immunity inasmuch as plaintiffs did not possess at the time of their detention “clearly established constitutional or statutory … The court there discussed the nature of Harlow immunity but found that the aliens were entitled to be protected from “gross physical abuse,” a right “clearly established” at the time of their detention.

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.

Harger v. Department of Labor

569 F.3d 898 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jun 10, 2009

Ingleson, 558 F.3d 888 , 891 n.5 (9th Cir.2009) (“Because this argument was not raised clearly and distinctly in the opening brief, it has been waived.”); Greenwood v. … The Court further stated that its holding was in accord with its prior decisions “establishing that sovereign immunity bars creditors from attaching or garnishing funds in the Treasury, or enforcing liens against property

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.

Bull v. City & County Sf

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Aug 21, 2008

ground of qualified immunity. … court’s denial of qualified immunity.

Fraire v. City of Arlington

957 F.2d 1268 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Apr 10, 1992

alleged to have violated.” 12 Whether a defendant asserting qualified immunity may be personally liable turns on the objective legal reasonableness of the defendant’s actions assessed in light of clearly established law. … Holmes 19 were the clearly established law in this circuit with respect to excessive force in the context of the Fourth Amendment.

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.

Sissoko v. United States

440 F.3d 1145 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Mar 16, 2006

Rocha contends, in con- trast, that she is entitled to qualified immunity from any damages liability. … Violation of a clearly established right?

Nelson O. Robles v. Prince George's County, Maryland James Rozar Antonio Debarros, Nelson O. Robles v. Prince George's County, Maryland James Rozar Antonio Debarros

302 F.3d 262 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Aug 26, 2002

C. 22 Even though the officers' actions deprived Robles of an actual constitutional right, Rozar and DeBarros may still be entitled to qualified immunity if that right was not clearly established at the time of the incident … Police officers performing discretionary acts "generally are granted a qualified immunity and are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional

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).