Case law

Reverend Stephen Jarrard v. Sheriff of Polk County

115 F.4th 1306 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Sep 16, 2024

established” to over- come their qualified-immunity defense. … Hartop, 992 F.3d 492, 504–17 (6th Cir. 2021), but that case cannot clearly establish the law in this Circuit for purposes of qualified immunity. Gilmore, 111 F.4th at 1135–36.

Riggins v. Goodman

572 F.3d 1101 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jul 10, 2009

Cline, 519 F.3d 1090, 1092 (10th Cir. 2008) (explaining that qualified immunity shields officials from damages actions unless their conduct was unreasonable in light of clearly established law). … clearly established constitutional rights.

John M. Gainor v. Scott Rogers City of Moorhead, a Minnesota Municipality and John Doe

973 F.2d 1379 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Oct 9, 1992

qualified immunity. … Mitchell once again makes clear what the court’s objective analysis should be on such a motion: Unless the plaintiff’s allegations state a claim of violation of clearly established law, a defendant pleading qualified immunity

Cruz v. City of Laramie

239 F.3d 1183 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Feb 15, 2001

Clearly Established Law The district court also found, in applying the second part of the test, that the constitutional right allegedly violated was clearly established and that defendants acted unreasonably. … While the federal qualified immunity standard focuses on whether a right was clearly established such that the officers would know their conduct violated that right, state law immunity in Wyoming requires that the officers

Rivera v. Senkowski

62 F.3d 80 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Aug 8, 1995

Finally, the district court rejected defendants’ defense of qualified immunity as to the retaliation claim since (1) the constitutional right against retaliation had been clearly established by 1990 and (2) defendants’ acts … Appellate Jurisdiction The affirmative defense of qualified immunity “shields public officials from liability for their discretionary acts that do ‘not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which

Makin v. Colorado Department of Corrections

183 F.3d 1205 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jul 12, 1999

Defendants contend they are entitled to qualified immunity because at the time of the relevant events, there was no clearly established law, that is, Supreme Court or Tenth Circuit authority, “which sets forth the parameters … City , 879 F.2d 706, 729 n.37 (10th Cir. 1989) (“[S]tructuring the inquiry [into what right must be clearly established] too narrowly would render the defense [of qualified immunity] available to all public officials except

Donald Morgan v. Michael Robinson

920 F.3d 521 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Mar 29, 2019

“The second prong of the qualified immunity analysis asks whether the right in question was ‘clearly established’ at the time of the violation.” Id. at 656. … Having established the facts in the summary judgment record, I now turn to the qualified immunity analysis.

Penn v. Escorsio

764 F.3d 102 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Aug 22, 2014

established such that Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity. … If the assumed facts indicated that they were merely inattentive or careless, then qualified immunity would shield them despite the fact that [they] violated [an inmates’s] clearly established rights.

Hamm v. Powell

874 F.2d 766 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jun 6, 1989

Nevertheless, they did not waive their right not to be held liable for conduct that did not violate clearly established law. *771 In Harlow , the Supreme Court reshaped the doctrine of qualified immunity and held that “government … Neither Johnson nor Gilmere involved a defense of qualified immunity. .

Easley

District Court, D. Kansas · Jan 16, 2026

“His response brief failed even to include the terms ‘qualified immunity’ or ‘clearly established.’” Id. … of establishing that the rights in question were clearly established at the time”).

Cody v. Weber

256 F.3d 764 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jul 9, 2001

the policy was in order (as opposed to injunctive relief limited to the single inmate). 113 F.3d at 892 . 2 We decline the prison officials' invitation to affirm the entry of summary judgment on the alternative grounds of qualified … immunity.

HOOVER v. GREYHOUSE

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Aug 30, 2024

Hoover's right to meaningful review of his placement in segregation, it need not address their argument that they are entitled to qualified immunity. See Abbott v. … constitutional right was 'clearly established’ at the time of the official's alleged misconduct.").

LaBounty v. Coughlin

137 F.3d 68 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Feb 13, 1998

Qualified Immunity The doctrine of qualified immunity is well established. … Where a right is clearly established, “the defendants may nonetheless establish immunity by showing that reasonable persons in their position would not have understood that their conduct was within the scope of the established

Backlund v. Barnhart

778 F.2d 1386 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Dec 17, 1985

that those rights were clearly established at the time of the conduct at issue. 23 See also Harlow v. … Davis extended the rule of qualified immunity to state officials. 104 S.Ct. at 3020 n. 12.

Lloyd Dela Cruz v. Kauai County Melvin K. Soong, Prosecuting Attorney for the County of Kauai

279 F.3d 1064 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Feb 6, 2002

The next step in evaluating the claim of qualified immunity, however, is to determine whether this right was “clearly established.” Saucier, 121 S.Ct. at 2156. … Under this standard, Soong is entitled to qualified immunity. Déla Cruz has not met his burden of proving that the right allegedly violated here was “clearly established” at the time of the alleged violation.

Dale v. Kelley

908 F. Supp. 125 · District Court, W.D. New York · Dec 6, 1995

“Under qualified immunity, a government official may claim immunity from suit only when in light of clearly established law and the information the official possesses, it was objectively reasonable for him to think that his … One basis upon which a qualified immunity defense can be established is by showing that the right allegedly violated was not clearly established at the time of the acts in question.

Shane Horton v. City of Santa Maria

915 F.3d 592 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Feb 1, 2019

CITY OF SANTA MARIA to qualified immunity so that “[g]oing forward, . . . the law is clearly established in this scenario”). … We therefore confine our inquiry to the second qualified immunity prong — whether the constitutional right at issue was “clearly established” at the time of the alleged violation. B.

Bentley v. Dennison

852 F. Supp. 2d 379 · District Court, S.D. New York · Feb 10, 2012

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity protects officials from liability if “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” 30 The Second … lower courts, and that therefore Earley’s holding was not clearly established, has been the linchpin of their continued success in obtaining qualified immunity.

Richey v. American Automobile Association, Inc.

380 Mass. 835 · Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · Jun 6, 1980

There may, indeed, be room for the observation that if the present facts should be held to qualify a discharged employee for relief, then a new practical definition might have to be given to employments theoretically terminable

James J. Giuffre v. Nicholas Bissell Richard Thornburg Robert Smith Russ Leffert Sam Debella Richard Meyers County of Somerset

31 F.3d 1241 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Aug 4, 1994

It also ruled that none of the individual officials was entitled to qualified immunity because Giuffre had raised a genuine issue of material fact as to whether any clearly established laws had been violated by the officials … The “clearly established” standard of Harlow was delineated by the Supreme Court in Anderson v.