Case law

J. Pearl Bussey-Morice v. Ivette Gomez

587 F. App'x 621 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Oct 1, 2014

Toward that end, qualified immunity protects government officials engaged in discretionary functions and sued in their individual capacities unless they violate “clearly established federal statutory or constitutional rights … Faced with these facts, we affirmed summary judgment in favor of the officers on qualified-immunity grounds because we concluded that the law was not clearly established that the officer’s conduct violated a constitutional

Melinda C. Frank v. Howard R. Relin, Individually and in His Official Capacity as the Monroe County District Attorney

1 F.3d 1317 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jul 28, 1993

It stated that the qualified immunity inquiry in this case is whether, in light of the clearly established law in 1985 and the circumstances that confronted Relin when he fired plaintiff, a reasonable district attorney could … In a § 1983 action, qualified immunity shields a defendant official sued in his indi *1328 vidual capacity “from liability for civil damages insofar as [his] conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional

Jensen v. Conrad

747 F.2d 185 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Oct 5, 1984

But if the underlying substantive right has not yet been clearly established, good faith immunity may be invoked regardless of the language of the statute. … The Court reasoned that if the law was not clearly established, immunity should be applied at the pretrial stage so as to minimize disruption of government activities.

Duluth-Superior ILA Marine Ass'n Restated Pension Plan v. Seaway Port Authority

501 U.S. 1218 · Supreme Court of the United States · Jun 17, 1991

Lunnon v. United States

District Court, D. New Mexico · Mar 23, 2020

demonstrating a violation of a clearly-established right, qualified immunity is a viable defense in cases where RICO violations have been alleged. See Brown v. … Nationsbank Corp., 188 F.3d 579, 588 (5th Cir. 1999) (holding that FBI agents were entitled to qualified immunity for RICO claims against them because the rights asserted were not clearly established at the time of defendants

Renfroe v. Parker

District Court, S.D. Mississippi · Jun 7, 2019

clearly established law.” … at 1153 (reversing denial of qualified immunity where facts did not fit clearly established law).4 2.

Hannon v. Turnage

892 F.2d 653 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jan 4, 1990

Hannon to defeat the defendants’ claim of qualified immunity, he must show that he had a clearly established property interest in continued employment with the VA. See Board of Regents v. … Hannon’s clearly established rights. Thus, the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity from Dr. Hannon’s claim that they deprived him of property without due process of law. C. Liberty Interest Dr.

Flanagan v. Munger

890 F.2d 1557 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Dec 8, 1989

The qualified immunity standard articulated above focuses on the objective legal reasonableness of an official's conduct measured against clearly established law at the time he acted. Id. … Qualified immunity insulates Chief Munger from liability with respect to this claim because, when he acted, the law regarding the regulation of police officers' off-duty speech in this context was not clearly established.

Rita Cavallaro v. Crittenden County

44 F. App'x 70 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Aug 30, 2002

The District Court denied Sheriff Richard Busby's motion for summary judgment based on qualified immunity. Busby appeals. We reverse. … Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 526 (1985) ("Unless the plaintiff's allegations state a claim of violation of clearly established law, a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal before the commencement of discovery

Paine v. Cason

678 F.3d 500 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · May 17, 2012

Christopher Jones v. Dwight Neven

678 F. App'x 490 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Feb 1, 2017

To defeat a claim of qualified immunity, a plaintiff must establish a violation of a clearly established constitutional right. See Hamby v. Hammond, 821 F.3d 1085, 1090 (9th Cir. 2016). 1. … Nor were Defendants entitled to qualified immunity on this claim.

Pritchard v. County of Erie

546 F.3d 222 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Oct 14, 2008

Defendants also claim qualified immunity from suit based on “an objectively reasonable belief that their actions were lawful and not in violation of any of [Plaintiffs-Respondents’j clearly established constitutional rights … “Qualified immunity protects officials from liability for civil damages as long as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”

Doe Ex Rel. Magee v. Covington County School District Ex Rel. Board of Education

637 F. Supp. 2d 392 · District Court, S.D. Mississippi · Apr 27, 2009

Standard of Review 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 … Even if the Defendants’ Actions Violated a Constitutional Right, the Right Was Not Clearly Established at the Time of the Incidents Giving Rise to this Case “Qualified immunity is applicable unless the official’s conduct

Lamar Wright v. City of Euclid

962 F.3d 852 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 18, 2020

We analyze whether an officer is entitled to qualified immunity using two steps: (1) whether the defendant violated a constitutional right; and (2) whether that constitutional right was clearly established at the time of … For this prong of the qualified immunity analysis, we are “not to define clearly established law at a high level of generality.” Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 563 U.S. 731, 742 (2011).

Mitchell v. CIT Bank, N.A.

District Court, E.D. Texas · Jul 28, 2021

Co., 123 F.R.D. 198, 201 (M.D.N.C. 1998) (work product doctrine is merely qualified immunity from discovery “not having an intrinsic value outside the litigation arena.”). … Ill. 2000) (“[D]escribing a document as ‘legal advice’ . . . is not the same as establishing that [it is] immune from discovery.”).

Project Veritas Action Fund v. Rollins

982 F.3d 813 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Dec 15, 2020

And, while some courts of appeals have held that this right to record is not clearly established in some contexts for purposes of qualified immunity, see, e.g., Kelly v. … That such recording qualifies as a species of protected newsgathering does not mean that Section 99's criminal bar against it necessarily violates the First Amendment.

Maria Morales v. Sonya Fry

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Oct 16, 2017

OPINION McKEOWN, Circuit Judge: The primary issue in this appeal is whether the “clearly established” prong of the qualified immunity analysis should be submitted to a jury. … That “legal question” as to “qualified immunity” was precisely what was the “clearly established” law which any reasonable officer would know.

Colin A. Edwards v. Bryan C. Shanley

666 F.3d 1289 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jan 12, 2012

“Qualified immunity shields government officials from liability for civil damages for torts committed while performing discretionary duties unless their conduct violates a clearly established statutory or constitutional … As a result, Officer Shanley cannot claim qualified immunity on the grounds that he did not know he was violating Edwards’s constitutional rights.5 In sum, we hold that clearly established federal law prohibits

Joe Cannon v. Michael Dehner

112 F.4th 580 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Aug 13, 2024

was clearly established at the time of the deprivation.” … Therefore, we need not address Appellants’ alternative contention that they are entitled to qualified immunity because the specific Eighth Amendment rights at issue were not clearly established in August 2020.

Spicer v. Hilton

618 F.2d 232 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Feb 28, 1980

However, it is well established that courts have a duty to avoid passing upon a constitutional question if the case may be disposed of on some other ground. Hagans v. … It is clearly established that the state's immunity can be waived by the state, see, e. g., Petty v. Tennessee-Missouri Bridge Comm'n., 359 U.S. 275, 276 , 79 S.Ct. 785 , 3 L.Ed.2d 804 (1959); Gunter v.