Case law

Walter Dartland v. Metropolitan Dade County, a Political Subdivision of the State of Florida, Sergio Pereira

866 F.2d 1321 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Feb 27, 1989

Pereira moved for summary judgment based on qualified immunity. The district court denied the motion. The Supreme Court formed the principle of qualified immunity in Harlow v. … “The words ‘clearly established ... constitutional rights’ may not be used to read the defense of immunity out of federal tort law by the facile expedient of stating constitutional rights in the most general possible terms

Henry v. Purnell

652 F.3d 524 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Jul 14, 2011

Henry stressed that “[i]t has been clearly established ... … Qualified immunity protects officers who commit constitutional violations but who, in light of clearly established law, could reasonably believe that their actions were lawful. Saucier v.

Scotto v. Almenas

143 F.3d 105 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · May 5, 1998

Most executive officials receive qualified immunity, whereby “government officials performing discretionary functions ... are shielded from liability ... insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … Qualified Immunity The district court did not. consider, and the parties have not briefed, whether or not Almenas, as alleged by Scotto, violated clearly established constitutional norms of which an objectively reasonable

Newell v. Sauser

79 F.3d 115 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Mar 11, 1996

The qualified immunity doctrine protects government officials from liability for civil damages “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … Analysis of a claim of qualified immunity entails three steps: “(1) the identification of the specific right allegedly violated; (2) the determination of whether that right was so ‘clearly established’ as to alert a reasonable

Donald Saucier v. Elliot M. Katz and in Defense of Animals

533 U.S. 194 · Supreme Court of the United States · Jun 11, 2001

This Court does not quarrel with the basic principle that to establish liability under 1962(c) one must allege and prove the existence of two distinct entities: (1) a "person"; and (2) an "enterprise" that is not simply the … We now agree with these Circuits and hold that the Second Circuit's interpretation of 1962(c) is erroneous. 5 We do not quarrel with the basic principle that to establish liability under 1962(c) one must allege and prove

Rappa v. Hollins

991 F. Supp. 367 · District Court, D. Delaware · Dec 30, 1997

Standard of Review for Qualified Immunity 3 In Harlow v. … The dissenting judge on the issue of qualified immunity argued that the line of harassment cases did clearly establish such harassment was unlawful and that the policy-based termination line of cases did not apply.

Ray v. Township of Warren

626 F.3d 170 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Nov 23, 2010

“The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … The Supreme Court has established a two-part analysis that governs whether a government official is entitled to qualified immunity. Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194, 201 (2001).

William Lund v. City of Rockford, Illinois

956 F.3d 938 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Apr 20, 2020

But even if Nieves did not apply retroactively, Lund still could not prevail, as the defendant officers were entitled to qualified immunity. … Police officers are entitled to qualified immunity under section 1983 unless they “violated a statutory or constitutional right that was clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct.” Reichle v.

Villalta Canales v. Caw

District Court, D. Maryland · Apr 3, 2020

The burden of establishing the qualified immunity defense rests on the party seeking to invoke it. Id. … Haines, 45 F.3d 790, 798 (4th Cir. 1995) (“[A] court reviewing a qualified immunity defense should assess … whether the alleged conduct violated law clearly established at the time the conduct occurred.”)

Melanie Kelsay v. Matt Ernst

933 F.3d 975 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Aug 13, 2019

Qualified immunity shields a government official from suit under § 1983 if his "conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known." Harlow v. … The district court rejected Ernst's defense of qualified immunity.

Harris v. City of Circleville

583 F.3d 356 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Oct 2, 2009

The Court, however, retains jurisdiction over the legal question of qualified immunity, i.e., whether a given set of facts violates clearly established law. Id. … Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability from civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate *365 clearly established

Denno v. School Bd. of Volusia Cty.

182 F.3d 780 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jul 26, 1999

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY FOR THE INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS Qualified immunity shields government officials from both suit and liability if their conduct violates no clearly established right of which a reasonable person … See Lassiter, 28 F.3d at 1150 (noting that qualified immunity is surrendered only when “pre-existing law” clearly establishes right in question).

Bond v. City of Tahlequah

981 F.3d 808 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Dec 1, 2020

Qualified Immunity “The doctrine of qualified immunity shields officials from civil liability so long as their conduct ‘does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … Clearly Established Law We have concluded that summary judgment was improper on the first prong of qualified immunity—violation of a constitutional right.

Correll Thomas v. C. Dillard

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · May 5, 2016

DILLARD 3 Dillard was entitled to qualified immunity because it was not clearly established at the time that the initial demand for a frisk was unlawful. … Because it was not clearly established at the time that the perceived domestic violence nature of an investigation was insufficient to establish reasonable suspicion, however, we hold Dillard is entitled to qualified immunity

Sharp v. Johnson

669 F.3d 144 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Feb 9, 2012

The Magistrate Judge also did not err in holding that Defendants were protected by qualified immunity because they did not violate Sharp’s clearly established rights. … A right is clearly established for qualified immunity purposes where its contours are “sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that right.”

Richard Betker v. Rodolfo Gomez

692 F.3d 854 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Sep 5, 2012

Qualified immunity shields a government official from liability for civil damages unless his or her conduct violates a clearly established principle or constitutional right of which a reasonable person would have known at … The Lack of Probable Cause Was Clearly Estab- lished at the Time of the Raid The final part of our qualified immunity inquiry is whether the constitutional right at stake “was clearly established at the time of the

Tibbetts v. Kulongoski

567 F.3d 529 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · May 29, 2009

Bryant, 502 U.S. 224, 226 , 112 S.Ct. 534 , 116 L.Ed.2d 589 (1991) (per curiam) (noting if the parameters of the right are not clearly established by case law, the official is entitled to qualified immunity). … Pelzer, 536 U.S. 730, 741 , 122 S.Ct. 2508 , 153 L.Ed.2d 666 (2002), if the parameters of the right are not clearly established by case law, the official is entitled to qualified immunity.

Alachua General Hosp., Inc. v. Zimmer USA, Inc.

403 So. 2d 1087 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Sep 11, 1981

litigation is "closely related" to the previous, terminated litigation. [2] However, the weight of modern authority clearly provides that work product retains its qualified immunity after the original litigation terminates … Smith in his investigation of the Hospital fire was work product as to the initial wrongful death litigation, and retains its qualified immunity as to the present litigation.

Edward H. Flint, Individually, as Father, Next of Kin, Administrator and Personal Representative of the Estate of Robert Flint v. Kentucky Department of Corrections Jack C. Lewis, Commissioner, Kentucky Department of Corrections Dewey Sowders, Deputy Commissioner, Kentucky Department of Corrections C. Tony Williams, Interim Warden Michael Whisman Tommy Eldridge Richard Gray Sue Montgomery, in Her Capacity as Guardian for James H. Montgomery, James Edgar Underwood Jim Montgomery, Print Shop Supervisor

270 F.3d 340 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Oct 26, 2001

before trial whether the defendant did acts that violate clearly established rights." … were violating a clearly established right of Flint's.Williams, 186 F.3d at 691 .

David Ivey v. Audrain County, Missouri

968 F.3d 845 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Aug 4, 2020

The court today concludes the defendant jail employees are entitled to qualified immunity because it believes Ivey’s father failed to establish a violation of clearly established law related to his son’s death while in custody … Such an approach is required “even when . . . a court decides only the clearly-established prong of the [qualified immunity] standard.” Id.