Case law

Sisney v. Reisch

674 F.3d 839 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Mar 19, 2012

We think it is clear the district court granted qualified immunity because it found Sisney had failed to allege violation of a constitutional right that was clearly established. … setting is a clearly established right.”

Hayes v. Long

72 F.3d 70 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jan 12, 1996

As explained by the Supreme Court, government officials performing discretionary functions are entitled to qualified immunity unless their challenged conduct violates "clearly established statutory or constitutional rights … This court has taken a broad view of what constitutes "clearly established law" for the purposes of a qualified immunity inquiry. Boswell v.

West Virginia Department of Health & Human Resources v. Payne

231 W. Va. 563 · West Virginia Supreme Court · Jun 12, 2013

Some of our caselaw makes reference to violations of “clearly established rights” while others make reference to “clearly established laws.” … Obviously, a public official who ignores or violates such clearly established precepts of the law . . . would not be entitled to qualified immunity[.]

Bill J. Crouch, Secretary, W. Va. Dept. of Health and Human Resources v. Eric Gillispie, Administrator

809 S.E.2d 699 · West Virginia Supreme Court · Jan 31, 2018

clearly established statutory or constitutional law. … Gillispie has failed to demonstrate a violation of a clearly established statutory or constitutional law sufficient to strip DHHR of its qualified immunity.23 IV.

Humberto A. Batistini v. Jorge L. Aquino

890 F.2d 535 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Nov 29, 1989

The very fact that a question is close strengthens a defendant’s qualified immunity defense by indicating that the law was not clearly established in plaintiff’s favor. … Divergent results on qualified immunity and the merits can, of course, also occur when a defendant is denied qualified immunity.

Gutierrez v. Luna County

841 F.3d 895 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Nov 15, 2016

“As in Smith, Plaintiffs’ response d[id] not even mention the terms ‘qualified immunity’ or ‘clearly established.’” Id. at 84. … Instead, we affirm based on the clearly-established-law prong of the qualified immunity analysis, see Pearson, 555 U.S. at 236 (permitting courts to address the qualified immunity prongs in any order), in particular as

Cary King v. Louisiana Tax Commission

821 F.3d 650 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · May 6, 2016

To establish that qualified immunity does not apply, the Kings must prove Handorf “[(1)] violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was ‘clearly established’ at the time of the challenged conduct … In the present case, Handorf is entitled to qualified immunity unless it was clearly established that what he did was a violation of the Kings’ Fourth Amendment rights. Morgan, 659 F.3d at 371.

Jones v. Coonce

7 F.3d 1359 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Nov 15, 1993

Helms, 459 U.S. 460 , 103 S.Ct. 864 , 74 L.Ed.2d 675 (1983), clearly established the law in this area, the court rejected the officials' qualified immunity argument as to the due process violation. … In determining whether the officials are protected by qualified immunity, we must first decide the essentially legal question of whether the acts the inmates allege violated clearly established law, and then we must decide

Duru v. City of Houston

30 F.3d 1494 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jul 22, 1994

United States v. Armstrong

706 F.3d 1 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Jan 18, 2013

Booker, we held that an offense with a mens rea of recklessness may -6- qualify as a "misdemeanor crime of domestic violence" under § 922 (g)(9). 644 F.3d at 21. … A cursory interpretation of §§ 921(a)(33)(A) and 922(g)(9), in light of Nason and Booker, clearly indicates otherwise. Statutory interpretation begins with the statute's language.

Carlyle Bryan v. United States

913 F.3d 356 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jan 18, 2019

Further, it held that the officers were entitled to qualified immunity because their conduct did not violate clearly established Fourth Amendment rights. … For purposes of qualified immunity, a legal principle does not become “clearly established” the day we announce a decision, or even one or two days later.

Regina Warlick, Cross-Appellant v. Herman Cross, Cross-Appellee

969 F.2d 303 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Sep 2, 1992

the court can base its legal determination of qualified immunity. *306 Rakovich v. … to qualified immunity.

Carpenter v. MISSISSIPPI VALLEY STATE UNIVERSITY

807 F. Supp. 2d 570 · District Court, N.D. Mississippi · Aug 10, 2011

Such immunity protects public officials from suit unless their conduct violates a clearly established constitutional right. Mace v. City of Palestine, 333 F.3d 621, 623 (5th Cir.2003). … Before turning to the second-prong of the qualified immunity analysis (i.e., whether the Defendants acted “objectively reasonable”), the Court first analyzes whether Plaintiff has shown a violation of a clearly established

Medicare&medicaid Gu 37,414 Pueblo Neighborhood Health Centers, Inc., and Oliver P. Pacheco v. Joseph E. Losavio, Jr.

847 F.2d 642 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · May 24, 1988

R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) on the ground that he or she is entitled to qualified immunity because the pleaded facts failed to show that his or her conduct violated clearly established law of which a reasonable person would have known … constitute a violation of clearly established law.

Michael Davitt v. Michael Krage

96 F.4th 1068 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Mar 21, 2024

Qualified immunity shields government officials from suit in federal court unless, at the time of the alleged offense, their conduct violates a right that was clearly established. Jenkins v. … As such, in rebutting a defense of qualified immunity, a plaintiff must define the clearly established right -4- with specificity—not “at a high level of generality.”

Alexis v. District of Columbia

77 F. Supp. 2d 35 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 29, 1999

The “Right” Which Must Have Been “Clearly Established” The plaintiffs contend that qualified immunity does not apply, because Mr. … Williams acted in disregard of clearly established rights. Accordingly, Mr. Williams is entitled to qualified immunity as to his statements at the January 1997 press conference. D.

Santamorena v. GA Military College

147 F.3d 1337 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jul 31, 1998

But still Plaintiff argues that the preexisting law was somehow so clearly established that Defendants should not be protected by qualified immunity. … Id.13 13 We have already stated that “[t]he law cannot be established by dicta. Dicta is particularly unhelpful in qualified immunity cases where we seek to identify clearly established law.” Hamilton v.

State v. Chase Securities, Inc.

188 W. Va. 356 · West Virginia Supreme Court · Nov 25, 1992

Obviously, a public official who ignores or violates such clearly established precepts of the law, as did the mayor in Hawkins, supra, would not be entitled to qualified immunity under Harlow and would be personally liable … Clearly, *362 the immunity in Bennett is a qualified immunity, and, as earlier noted, some public officials are entitled to an absolute immunity. See note 11, supra.

Horn Jackson v. Stephenson

11 F.4th 163 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Aug 26, 2021

immunity because it was not clearly established by 1999 that “firearms examiners” had an obligation under Brady to turn over exculpatory evidence to the prosecutor; and (2) he is entitled to absolute immunity with respect … “[T]o ensure that fear of liability will not unduly inhibit officials in the discharge of their duties,” however, “the officials may claim qualified immunity.” 7 Qualified immunity shields the official from civil

Herring v. Keenan

218 F.3d 1171 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jul 10, 2000

The district court rejected *1173 Keenan’s contention that she was'entitled to qualified immunity because she did not violate a clearly established constitutional right. … In A.L.A., however, this court did not consider whether that right was clearly established in 1989 or whether the government official that disclosed the information was entitled to qualified immunity. 26 F.3d 989 .