Case law

Hayes v. Long

72 F.3d 70 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Dec 7, 1995

On appeal, Hayes argues defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity, because in February 1992, Muslim inmates had a “clearly established right” in this, circuit not to handle pork. … This court has taken a broad view of what constitutes “clearly established law” for the purposes of a qualified immunity inquiry. Boswell v.

Julius L. Finkelstein v. Louis P. Bergna

924 F.2d 1449 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jan 29, 1991

The district court correctly concluded that Finkelstein alleged a violation of clearly established law and we accordingly affirm the denial of qualified immunity on the liberty interest claim. … II The district court also concluded that Bergna was not entitled to qualified *1453 immunity on the first amendment claim. Because the law was not clearly established in 1982, we reverse.

Sease Beard v. Doris Falkenrath

97 F.4th 1109 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Apr 4, 2024

At a minimum, the defendants have not established “qualified immunity [from] the face of the complaint.” Bradford, 394 F.3d at 1015. B. … For another, Beard’s argument would effectively flip the qualified-immunity burden.

Parsons v. City of Pontiac

533 F.3d 492 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 22, 2008

But under § 1983, “an arresting agent is entitled to qualified immunity if he or she could reasonably (even if erroneously) have believed that the arrest was lawful, in light of clearly established law and the information … Detectives Martin and McKinney, however, are entitled to qualified immunity unless their actions “were objectively unreasonable in light of the clearly established right.” See id.

Iving Thomas Barbara Thomas v. City of Dallas, Darwin Gaines Aquilla Allen

175 F.3d 358 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · May 11, 1999

V To determine whether Allen is entitled to qualified immunity, we must de *364 termine (1) whether the Thomases stated a claim for violation of a constitutional right; (2) whether this constitutional right was established … at the time of the actions underlying this lawsuit; and (3) whether the Thomases established that Allen’s conduct was objectively unreasonable in light of the legal rules clearly established.

Ramirez v. Department of Corrections

222 F.3d 1238 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Aug 11, 2000

As mentioned, when a defendant claims qualified immunity, the plaintiff must establish both that 1) the defendant’s conduct violated a federal or constitutional right, and 2) the right violated was clearly established at … clearly established at the time of Defendants actions.

Ledura Watkins v. Robert Healy

986 F.3d 648 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jan 28, 2021

clearly established law. … qualified immunity that would attach.”

John Doe, Individually and on Behalf of His Minor Two Children v. State of Louisiana, Paula Bennett and Sheryl George

2 F.3d 1412 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Nov 12, 1993

“Qualified immunity shields only that conduct not violative of clearly established rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Austin, 830 F.2d at 1355 . … The district court held that appellants were not protected by qualified immunity because they violated the clearly established right of ‘family integrity.’

Gabrielle Eddy v. Virgin Islands Water And Power Authority

256 F.3d 204 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jul 10, 2001

does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known." … alleged a violation of a clearly established constitutional right.

Katie Joseph v. John Doe

981 F.3d 319 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Nov 20, 2020

But, to overcome qualified immunity, the plaintiff’s version of those disputed facts must also constitute a violation of clearly established law. … I also agree with the majority that an absence of clearly established law entitles the “bystander officers” to qualified immunity.

Mary Ann Collier v. Fred O. Dickinson, III

477 F.3d 1306 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Feb 12, 2007

Qualified immunity offers protection for government officials, acting within their discretionary authority,1 who are sued in their individual capacities as long as “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … The words of the DPPA alone are “specific enough to establish clearly the law applicable to particular conduct and circumstances and to overcome qualified immunity.” Vinyard v.

Dorsey v. Barber

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Feb 21, 2008

such coercive measures had not been so clearly established by prior case law. … Haugen, 543 U.S. 194, 198-99 (2004) (making it clear that, to overcome qualified immunity, the right allegedly violated must be shown to have been clearly established in a particularized and relevant sense).

John Doe v. Pa. State Univ.

336 F. Supp. 3d 441 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 21, 2018

Whether the Individual Defendants Are Entitled to Qualified Immunity Mr. Shaha, Ms. Feldbaum, and Mr. Peters argue that Mr. Doe's claim against them should be dismissed on qualified immunity grounds. … Roe was "clearly established." 70 Therefore, this Court will dismiss the individual capacity claims against Mr. Shaha, Ms. Feldbaum, and Mr. Peters. 71 III. CONCLUSION For the reasons stated above, Mr.

Adam Kanuszewski v. Mich. Dep't of Health & Human Servs.

927 F.3d 396 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 10, 2019

To overcome qualified immunity, Plaintiffs must show that "the right at issue was clearly established at the time of the defendant's alleged misconduct." Barker , 649 F.3d at 433 . … Thus, Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity because Plaintiffs have failed to show that "the right at issue was clearly established at the time of [their] alleged misconduct." Barker , 649 F.3d at 433 .

Ambus v. Utah State Board of Education

220 Utah Adv. Rep. 12 · Utah Supreme Court · Aug 24, 1993

were entitled to qualified immunity under § 1983. … Because it is an affirmative defense, the issue of qualified immunity arises after the plaintiff establishes a prima facie case under § 1983. Harlow v.

Varrone v. Bilotti

123 F.3d 75 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Aug 18, 1997

It held that, for purposes of qualified immunity, it was clearly established at the time that strip searches of prison visitors could be made only when based upon reasonable suspicion. Varrone v. … The law was “clearly established” if the circuit’s decisions “clearly fox-eshadow” a particular ruling on the issue. Id. Decisions of other circuits also may indicate whether the law was clearly established.

Richard Scott v. John Baldwin

720 F.3d 1034 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Aug 6, 2013

Qualified immunity shields public officials from § 1983 damage actions if “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Pearson v. … Because Baldwin’s conduct was not clearly “unlawful in the situation he confronted,” he is entitled to qualified immunity. See Grayson v. Ross, 454 F.3d 802, 810 (8th Cir. 2006).

Wyno v. Lowndes Cnty.

824 S.E.2d 297 · Supreme Court of Georgia · Feb 18, 2019

As a result, there has developed what has become known as qualified immunity or official immunity for public officials and employees. … means of varying that immunity by legislative act.

Kathleen Whalen v. John McMullen

907 F.3d 1139 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Oct 30, 2018

“Qualified immunity is no immunity at all if ‘clearly established’ law  WHALEN V. … The right Whalen asserts was not clearly established, and McMullen is entitled to qualified immunity from this suit. 26 WHALEN V. MCMULLEN III.

Randall v. Fairmont City Police Department

186 W. Va. 336 · West Virginia Supreme Court · Dec 12, 1991

Guiding us in answering this question in the affirmative is the general rule of construction in governmental tort legislation cases favoring liability, not immunity: unless the legislature has clearly provided for immunity … We believe that the legislature has not clearly provided for immunity regardless of the existence of a special relationship/special duty. Accordingly, this Court holds that W Va.