Case law

Janelle Perez v. City of Roseville

882 F.3d 843 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Feb 9, 2018

Clearly Established Law Although Perez’s termination violated her constitutional rights to privacy and intimate association, the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity unless those rights were clearly established … We reaffirm that, for purposes of qualified immunity, a Ninth Circuit precedent is sufficient to clearly establish the law within our circuit. See, e.g., Hughes v.

Rebecca Sterling v. Board of Trustees

42 F.4th 901 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Aug 1, 2022

Our review, however, is limited to “abstract issue[s] of law relating to qualified immunity[,] . . . typically[] the issue whether the federal right allegedly infringed was clearly established.” Lockridge v. … Based on that context, we construe the statement in Darby about qualified immunity to mean that the FMLA clearly established the violative nature of the particular conduct in that case, not that qualified immunity can never

William Ashford v. Univ. of Mich.

89 F.4th 960 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jan 9, 2024

immunity because their actions clearly violated Ashford’s well-established constitutional right to free speech. … that Ashford had a clearly established right to exercise his free speech rights without retaliation,” and subsequently denied their motion for summary judgment based on qualified immunity.

Apodaca v. Raemisch

864 F.3d 1071 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jul 25, 2017

Here the district court denied qualified immunity to the warden and director, reasoning that the underlying constitutional right had been clearly established. … Even with this assumption, the warden and director would enjoy qualified immunity because the underlying constitutional right had not been clearly established.

Wendy Browning v. Edmonson Cnty., Ky.

18 F.4th 516 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Nov 17, 2021

the right was clearly established.” … To meet the second qualified-immunity element, C.S. next must show that Jones’s use of a taser violated “clearly established” law. See Wesby, 138 S. Ct. at 589.

Blake v. Wright

179 F.3d 1003 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 15, 1999

Alternatively, the majority opinion may imply that the district court in Mitchell could not reach the qualified immunity question because the law with respect to Title III was clearly established, not because qualified immunity … We fail to see the logic of providing a defense of qualified immunity to protect public officials from personal liability when they violate constitutional rights that are not clearly established and deny them qualified immunity

Estate of Leon Walker, Jr. v. Hershell Wallace

881 F.3d 1056 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Feb 8, 2018

An individual defendant is entitled to qualified immunity if his conduct does not .violate clearly established constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. … To be clearly established, preexisting law must, make the unlawfulness of the officials’ conduct apparent so .that they have “fair and clear warping” they are violating the constitution; qualified immunity therefore protects

Lynda Gaines v. E. Casey Wardynski

871 F.3d 1203 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Sep 21, 2017

“Under the qualified immunity doctrine, government officials performing discretionary functions are- immune not just from liability, but from suit, unless the conduct which is the basis for suit violates clearly established … But, of course, a district court case cannot clearly establish the law for qualified immunity purposes either. See, e.g., Gonzalez v. Lee Cty.

Jill Dillard v. Rick Hoyt

961 F.3d 1048 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jun 15, 2020

of our sister circuits have denied qualified immunity while finding the right to informational privacy was clearly established. … I fail to see how this is affected by whether a constitutional right is clearly established for purposes of granting qualified immunity.

Sparr v. Ward

306 F.3d 589 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Oct 7, 2002

II. 7 Qualified immunity is an affirmative defense for which the defendant carries the burden of proof. The plaintiff, however, must demonstrate that the law is clearly established. Johnson-El v. … Id. 9 The inquiry "focuses on the objective legal reasonableness of an official's acts," and the qualified immunity defense fails if the official violates a clearly established right because "a reasonably competent public

Charles Mack v. John Yost

63 F.4th 211 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Mar 21, 2023

immunity on the grounds that they did not violate clearly established rights. … The Supreme Court has repeatedly admonished courts not to define rights too broadly when determining whether law was “clearly established” for purposes of qualified immunity.

Timmy Mosier v. Joseph Evans

90 F.4th 541 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jan 9, 2024

The defense of qualified immunity protects officials when “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. … To overcome qualified immunity, a plaintiff must demonstrate that an official violated a clearly established statutory or constitutional right under federal law. Reed v.

Williams v. Alabama State University

102 F.3d 1179 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jan 6, 1997

DISCUSSION Qualified immunity shields government officials sued in their individual capacities who act pursuant to discretionary authority "insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established ... … The question of qualified immunity should be resolved in the defendant's favor on a motion to dismiss if the plaintiff fails to allege the violation of a clearly established constitutional right.

Trinell King v. Ricky Pridmore

961 F.3d 1135 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jun 5, 2020

qualified immunity may also establish that the officers are entitled to discretionary-function immunity.” … The same facts which establish Sergeant Williams’ entitlement to qualified immunity establish that his acts were not willful, malicious or in bad faith.

Gonzales v. Duran

590 F.3d 855 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Dec 22, 2009

Second, the judge could define the clearly established law for the jury. … Second, in deciding whether a right is clearly established, an essential part of the qualified immunity inquiry, a court must assess whether the right was clearly established agaixxst a backdrop of the objective legal reasonableness

Rayvie Hall v. Kimberly Flournoy

975 F.3d 1269 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Sep 17, 2020

Qualified immunity is the added protection afforded government officials to protect them against “the costs of trial [and] the burdens of broad-reaching discovery,” as long as their conduct does not “violate clearly established … Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511 (1985), the Supreme Court dealt with the second requirement -- the clearly established nature of the violation -- and held that a decision denying qualified immunity would be subject to interlocutory

Culbreath v. Block

799 F.2d 1248 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Sep 4, 1986

Federal executive branch officials enjoy qualified immunity from suits for constitutional violations to the extent their conduct does not violate “clearly established law.” Mitchell v. … Rather, qualified immunity will be forfeited only when at the time of the conduct in question it is clearly established that plaintiffs have the particular constitutional right and that the statutory and regulatory provisions

Geter v. Fortenberry

849 F.2d 1550 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jul 26, 1988

Qualified immunity shields only that conduct not violative of clearly established constitutional [or statutory] rights of which a reasonable person would have known. … clearly established constitutional principles.

John David Wilson, Jr. v. Secretary, Department of Corrections

54 F.4th 652 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Nov 29, 2022

An official enjoys qualified immunity unless: (1) the plaintiff alleges facts establishing that “the defendant’s conduct violated a constitutional or statutory right”; and (2) the violated right was clearly established at … We conclude that defendants are entitled to qualified immunity because the right at issue was not clearly established.

Fielding v. Tollaksen

257 F. App'x 400 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Dec 12, 2007

Plaintiff does not allege any facts that, if proved, would establish collaboration between the landlords and the state actors. … The police officers, in turn, are protected by qualified immunity if their actions do not violate clearly established law, or it was objectively reasonable for them to believe that them actions did not violate the law.