Case law

Allison v. Department Of Corrections

94 F.3d 494 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Aug 30, 1996

See id. at ----, 115 S.Ct. at 2156 (noting that a denial of qualified immunity is immediately appealable so long as it turns on an issue of law; namely, "the purely legal issue [of] what law was 'clearly established' "). … immunity. 1 Government officials are entitled to qualified immunity when "their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known."

Atkinson v. Taylor

316 F.3d 257 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jan 21, 2003

We cannot conclude that appellants are entitled to qualified immunity. Atkinson has fulfilled Sauciers first prong for denying qualified immunity by alleging a violation of a clearly established constitutional right. … Milhouse clearly established that such retaliatory actions, if proven, are not legal. Thus, Saucier’s second prong is satisfied and appellants are not entitled to qualified immunity. C.

Tangreti v. Bachmann

983 F.3d 609 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Dec 28, 2020

Bachmann appealed from the denial of qualified immunity arguing that the scope of supervisory liability for deliberate- indifference claims under the Eighth Amendment is not clearly established after Ashcroft v. … is not clearly established.

Division of Employment Security v. Board of Police Commissioners

864 F.3d 974 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jul 28, 2017

The Officers “Qualified immunity shields a government official from liability unless his conduct violates ‘clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’” … “Our prior cases have clearly established that use of [a] taser on a nonfleeing, nonviolent suspected misdemeanant [is] unreasonable.” Brossart v.

Farry v. City of Pawtucket

725 F. Supp. 2d 286 · District Court, D. Rhode Island · Apr 13, 2010

Where the law is not sufficiently clear to provide such warning to an officer that he or she is violating plaintiffs rights, qualified immunity is appropriate; however, if the law is clearly established, the Court then considers … Mattox, 127 F.3d 1416 (11th Cir.1997) to hold that for purposes of qualified immunity analysis, the law was clearly established “that it was unconstitutional for police offi *302 cers to increase their use of physical force

John Eugene Youmans v. M. J. Oschner

626 F.3d 557 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Nov 16, 2010

We “review de novo a district court’s denial of a motion for summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds.” … was not already clearly established at the time of the alleged violation.

Benjamin v. Washington State Bar Ass'n

138 Wash. 2d 506 · Washington Supreme Court · Jul 22, 1999

Benjamin’s termination the law was not clearly established that the termination constituted state action, nor was the law clearly established that Dr. … Consequently, we need not address the second step in qualified immunity analysis—determining whether *528 the constitutional right allegedly violated was clearly established at the time the dispute arose.

Bass v. Coughlin

800 F. Supp. 1066 · District Court, N.D. New York · Dec 11, 1991

“Once qualified immunity is pleaded, plaintiff’s complaint will be dismissed unless defendant’s alleged conduct, when committed, violated ‘clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … While the right to a kosher diet was “clearly established” during the time in question, the magistrate judge correctly concluded that summary judgment was not proper on the qualified immunity question.

Jaeger v. Dubuque County

880 F. Supp. 640 · District Court, N.D. Iowa · Mar 18, 1995

The standard for qualified immunity is that “government officials performing discretionary functions, generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … Delo, 999 F.2d 364, 366 (8th Cir.1993) (first step in qualified immunity analysis was determination of whether conduct violated any clearly established right).

Dillard v. City of Springdale, Arkansas

930 F.3d 935 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jul 12, 2019

“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.” Estate of Walker v. … Absent either a clearly established right or a constitutional violation, qualified immunity applies. See Estate of Walker, 881 F.3d at 1060. We apply the same standard to claims under the Arkansas Constitution.

Thornhill v. Breazeale

88 F. Supp. 2d 647 · District Court, S.D. Mississippi · Feb 10, 2000

Plaintiffs, therefore, have alleged the violation of a clearly established constitutional right and satisfied the first prong of the qualified immunity test. … “The second prong of the qualified immunity test is better understood as two separate inquiries: whether the allegedly violated constitutional rights were clearly established at the time of the incident; and, if so, whether

Marrero-Mendez v. Calixto-Rodriguez

830 F.3d 38 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Jul 19, 2016

Clearly Established Law Appellants would still be entitled to qualified immunity if the right they violated was not "clearly established" at the time of their conduct. … establishes' law for the purposes of a qualified immunity analysis").

Diaz v. Cantu

123 F.4th 736 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Dec 13, 2024

Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 528–30 (1985) (qualified immunity based on a lack of clearly established law); Plumhoff v. … established to strip an official of qualified immunity.

Jones v. County of Los Angeles

802 F.3d 990 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Sep 21, 2015

However, “[s]pecific binding precedent is not required to show that a right is clearly established for qualified immunity purposes.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). … Step Two: Clearly Established Law The second prong of the qualified-immunity analysis asks whether the right in question was “clearly established” at the time of the violation.

Armstrong v. City of Melvindale

432 F.3d 695 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jan 6, 2006

But where, as here, Defendants do not dispute the facts—they claim instead that the alleged facts do not reflect a violation of clearly established law—“a district court’s denial of a claim of qualified immunity . . . is … right was clearly established.”

Meyer v. State

292 Or. App. 647 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jul 5, 2018

immunity on those claims, because none of those rights were clearly established. … The right in question was clearly established at the relevant time. As a result, Niswender and Sugahara were not entitled to qualified immunity.

Ronald T. Borello v. Richard Allison, Lisa Gales, John Liefer, and John Inman

446 F.3d 742 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · May 11, 2006

whether that right was ‘clearly established’ at the time of the alleged conduct.” … Because Plaintiff has not shown that his constitutional rights were violated, we need not move to the second step of the qualified immunity analysis: whether those rights were clearly established at the time of the attack

Chadha v. Charlotte Hungerford Hospital

272 Conn. 776 · Supreme Court of Connecticut · Feb 15, 2005

qualified immunity pursuant to General Statutes §§ 19a-20 and 19a-17b. … In its memorandum of decision, the court concluded that the defendants were protected by qualified immunity, pursuant to §§ 19a-20 and 19a-17b, and that qualified immunity and not absolute immunity applied to the defendants

Graham v. Cawthorn

427 S.W.3d 34 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Apr 18, 2013

Under that analysis, a motion for summary judgment based on qualified immunity is precluded only when the plaintiff has asserted a constitutional violation, demonstrated the constitutional right is clearly established, and … Brt, supra (emphasis added). 5 The Supreme Court of the United States has recognized that “courts may grant qualified immunity on the ground that a purported right was not ‘clearly established’ by prior case law, without

Sonia Garcia v. Wesley Blevins

957 F.3d 596 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Apr 30, 2020

We therefore hold Blevins is entitled to qualified immunity because he did not violate clearly established law. IV. … The Garcias also assert that, if we conclude the law was not clearly established, we should reconsider our approach to qualified immunity.