Case law

V-1 Oil Co. v. Smith

114 F.3d 854 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · May 29, 1997

Qualified immunity is immunity from suit, not a defense. As such, the justifications for the doctrine of qualified immunity demand that we exercise jurisdiction over Smith’s appeal. See Chateaubriand v. … The law was not clearly established when Smith acted. Qualified immunity insulates Smith from civil liability for his actions. *858 IV We reverse the district court’s denial of summary judgment.

H.A.L. Ex Rel. Lewis v. Foltz

551 F.3d 1227 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Dec 15, 2008

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s denial of Defendants’ motion to dismiss based on qualified immunity. … Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s denial of Defendants’ motion to dismiss based on qualified immunity.6 AFFIRMED. 6 We do not hint about the availability of qualified immunity on summary

Zackery Beck v. Hamblen Cty., Tenn.

969 F.3d 592 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 10, 2020

A Qualified immunity shields a government official from money damages (and litigation) unless the official’s conduct violated a “clearly established” legal rule. Pearson, 555 U.S. at 232. … So Kingsley’s effect on Beck’s deliberate-indifference claim (if any) cannot qualify as “clearly established” law under the qualified-immunity test. See Wilson v. Layne, 526 U.S. 603, 618 (1999).

Brumfield v. Hollins

551 F.3d 322 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Dec 2, 2008

Analysis “Qualified 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). … In the qualified immunity analysis, “[t]he subjective deliberate indifference standard serves only to demonstrate the clearly established law in effect at the time of the incident . . .

Alston v. Read

663 F.3d 1094 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Dec 14, 2011

[2] When evaluating a denial of summary judgment on the issue of qualified immunity, our review is limited to the “purely legal issue whether the facts alleged . . . support a claim of clearly established law.” … The qualified immunity inquiry is two-pronged. We must ask whether “the officer’s conduct violated a constitutional right” and whether “the right was clearly established” at the time of the alleged misconduct.

Russell Ex Rel. Jn v. Virg-In

258 P.3d 795 · Alaska Supreme Court · Jul 22, 2011

Qualified Immunity And Claims Of Excessive Force Qualified immunity shields public officials from civil liability "insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … immunity because she did not violate clearly established federal law does not protect the municipality from liability....

Maria Salim, Administratrix of the Estate of Eric Reyes, I/o v. William Proulx

93 F.3d 86 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Aug 23, 1996

have violated was clearly established. … We need to determine only whether, on plaintiffs version, an immunity defense is established as a matter of law. C. Merits of Qualified Immunity Defense The right to be free of excessive force is clearly established.

Kevin R. Black v. Al C. Parke, Kenneth Case, Walt Chapleau, and Tom Campbell

4 F.3d 442 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Sep 9, 1993

Defendants maintain that they are entitled to qualified immunity because the law is not so clearly established that they would have known that their conduct was unlawful. … However, if genuine issues of material fact exist as to whether the defendants actually did commit acts that would violate a clearly established right, then summary judgment on qualified immunity is improper. Poe v.

Tony Velasquez v. John Senko

813 F.2d 1509 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Apr 6, 1987

The court found that appellants failed to address the pertinent issue for a claim of qualified immunity: whether the law they were accused of violating was clearly established. … qualified immunity claim meets Cohen "separate from the merits" test because it involves only "legal determination that a given proposition of law was not clearly established"); id.

Reinhardt v. Kopcow

66 F. Supp. 3d 1348 · District Court, D. Colorado · Sep 4, 2014

Qualified Immunity “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 … Post, 574 F.3d 1294, 1300 (10th Cir.2009) (qualified immunity places the burden on the plaintiff to show that the constitutional right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation).

Robert A. Borucki v. W. Michael Ryan, Etc.

827 F.2d 836 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Aug 27, 1987

Conclusion In view of the foregoing, we hold that Ryan’s actions did not violate a clearly established constitutional right of privacy and that he is therefore entitled to qualified immunity. … Murchek, 766 F.2d 1494 , 1500-01 (11th Cir.l985)(officials had qualified immunity where federal due process rights not clearly established, although state statutory due process rights were clearly established); Powers v.

Carmen Nereida-Gonzalez v. Cirilo Tirado-Delgado

990 F.2d 701 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Apr 14, 1993

Qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions from civil liability for money damages when their conduct does not violate “clearly established” statutory or constitutional rights of which … to don the cloak of qualified immunity.

Gavrilles v. O'CONNOR

611 F. Supp. 210 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jun 17, 1985

The case is now before the Court on defendants’ motion for summary judgment, which raises *211 the affirmative defense of qualified immunity. Under Harlow v. … The impermissibility of retaliating against an employee for engaging in union activities was clearly established by 1982.

Lawrence Thompson v. Pete Copeland

885 F.3d 582 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Mar 13, 2018

Dissenting, Judge Christen would hold that the police officer was not entitled to qualified immunity on plaintiff’s excessive force claim because plaintiff’s right not to have a gun pointed at his head was clearly established … Conclusion Because the law was not clearly established within the parameters dictated by the Supreme Court, Copeland is entitled to qualified immunity and the grant of summary judgment is AFFIRMED.

Lewis v. City of Ft. Collins

903 F.2d 752 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · May 14, 1990

In some cases, discovery may be necessary to determine whether the defendants’ challenged conduct violated clearly established law and thus, whether defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. … Objective Reasonableness Government officials performing discretionary functions are entitled to qualified immunity insofar as their conduct does not violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which

Hamilton Ex Rel. Hamilton v. Cannon

80 F.3d 1525 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Apr 19, 1996

However, even if Ross were indistinguishable, Seventh Circuit decisions can not clearly establish the law for purposes of qualified immunity in this circuit. E.g., D'Aguanno v. … McMillian, 939 F.2d 1479, 1497-98 & n. 32 (11th Cir.1991) (law can be "clearly established" for qualified immunity purposes by decisions of U.S.

Wells v. Cole

355 F. Supp. 3d 841 · District Court, E.D. Missouri · Nov 30, 2018

that right was clearly established at the time of the employee's firing." … Regarding step two of the qualified immunity analysis, "[f]or a constitutional right to be clearly established, its contours 'must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates

Chamberlain v. Mathis

151 Ariz. 551 · Arizona Supreme Court · Nov 24, 1986

Because the decisions just cited establish that government executive employees are presumptively entitled to some immunity, our analysis is limited to a comparison of qualified and absolute immunity. … Qualified immunity protects government officials from liability for acts within the scope of their public duties unless the official knew or should have known that he was acting in violation of established law or acted in

Parker v. State

337 Md. 271 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Feb 7, 1995

In particular, the Court has distinguished between the qualified and narrower immunity for discretionary acts generally accorded to public officials, and absolute judicial immunity, which, unlike qualified immunity, applies … Mele, 267 Md. 437, 444 , 298 A.2d 156, 161 (1972) (contrasting the absolute immunity of judges with the qualified immunity of law enforcement officers); Eliason v.

In Re State Police Litigation

88 F.3d 111 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jul 3, 1996

On appeal, defendants contend that they are entitled to qualified immunity principally because at the pertinent times it was not clearly established that tape-recording telephone calls, without ever listening to them, violated … Summary judgment dismissing a claim on the basis of the defendants' qualified-immunity defense may thus be granted if the court finds that the asserted rights were not clearly established, or if the evidence is such that,