Case law

DuFour-Dowell v. Cogger

152 F.3d 678 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Aug 10, 1998

When a party appeals a denial of summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds, we evaluate the record de novo to determine whether we can decide the immunity questions without resolving disputed questions of fact. … Because the facts are in hot dispute, the officers cannot seek pretrial refuge behind a claim Of qualified immunity.

Joan Kedra v. Richard Schroeter

876 F.3d 424 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Nov 28, 2017

established as required to defeat qualified immunity. … to qualified immunity.

Bertram Zweibon v. John N. Mitchell, Individually and as Attorney General of the United States

720 F.2d 162 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Oct 21, 1983

The test for qualified immunity is “clearly established,” not “clearly foreshadowed.” The distinction is self-evident. … that for establishing the “objective” element of the old two-pronged test for qualified immunity.

Jaso v. Travis County Juvenile Board

6 S.W.3d 324 · Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin) · Nov 4, 1999

University of Mississippi, the Fifth Circuit emphasized that a fact-finder can infer pretext if it finds that the employee was clearly better qualified (as opposed to merely better or as qualified). … Jaso does not claim to have been clearly better qualified than Medina for the position of chief. The Board argues that this is the only way to establish a pretext for age-discrimination. We disagree.

Lassiter v. Alabama A & M University

28 F.3d 1146 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 17, 1994

Qualified immunity protects government officials performing discretionary functions from civil trials (and the other burdens of litigation, including discovery) and from liability if their conduct violates no “clearly established … Once the qualified immunity defense is raised, plaintiffs bear the burden of showing that the federal "rights" allegedly violated were "clearly established.” Barts, 865 F.2d at 1190 (citing Mitchell v.

Sack v. St. Francis Hosp.

989 F.2d 508 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Mar 1, 1993

Sack's complaint, finding that Officer Lowder was entitled to qualified immunity: 10 "[I]t cannot be said that defendant Lowder violated the clearly established rights of plaintiff. … Sack's clearly established statutory or Constitutional rights and was therefore entitled to qualified immunity.

Therrien v. Town of Jay

483 F. Supp. 2d 19 · District Court, D. Maine · Apr 6, 2007

Therrien admits he "was very, very wrong” not to stop and that he "was not thinking clearly” that night. DSMF ¶ 43; POSMF ¶ 43. 12 . … Plaintiff qualifies this statement to say that Mr. Baldridge was not in a position to see what was occurring. POSMF ¶ 120. Be this as it may, it remains implausible' that Mr.

Bruce v. Beary

498 F.3d 1232 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Sep 6, 2007

officers are entitled to qualified immunity only if the law regarding the proper scope of administrative searches was not clearly established at the time the search was conducted. … We also hold that the officers are not entitled to qualified immunity from this lawsuit.

Cantu v. Rocha

77 F.3d 795 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Feb 28, 1996

Ct. 2727, 2738 (1982) (whether an official is entitled to qualified 17 immunity depends on the "objective legal reasonableness" of the official's action as measured by clearly established … CONCLUSION Defendants Rocha and Salazar are entitled to qualified immunity from Cantu's federal law claims because Cantu failed to alleged violation of a clearly established federal right.

Webb v. Haas

728 A.2d 1261 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · May 13, 1999

Qualified immunity shields government officials from civil liability under section 1983 “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would … Whether a right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation is a question of law.

Charles Jackson v. City of Cleveland

64 F.4th 736 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 6, 2023

clearly established law.” … Clearly Established Law We next consider the second prong of qualified immunity, which asks whether the right that has been violated was clearly established, meaning that “every ‘reasonable official would  No. 22

Roosevelt-Hennix v. Prickett

717 F.3d 751 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · May 16, 2013

Roosevelt-Hennix argues that under this set of facts, the one this court must assume for purposes of review of a summary-judgment based denial of qualified immunity, Prickett’s use of the taser violated her clearly established … Put simply, Prickett’s arguments as to both prongs of the qualified immunity analysis—the existence of a constitutional violation that is clearly established—depend entirely on the assertion Roosevelt-Hennix actively resisted

Valladares v. Cordero

552 F.3d 384 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Jan 12, 2009

Thus, this Court has appellate jurisdiction to con- sider appeals from denials of qualified immunity only "to the extent that the official maintains that the official’s conduct did not violate clearly established law." … Appellant’s appeal is limited to the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis: whether a reasonable officer would have known that his actions violated a clearly estab- lished right. Harlow, 457 U.S. at 818.

Foy v. Holston

94 F.3d 1528 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Sep 17, 1996

whether the federal right allegedly infringed was clearly established.") … Once the qualified immunity defense is raised, plaintiffs bear the burden of showing that the federal rights allegedly violated were clearly established. See Barts v.

Kelley Bagby v. Steve Brondhaver

98 F.3d 1096 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Oct 28, 1996

Deputy sheriff Steve Brondhaver appeals an order denying his motion for a qualified immunity dismissal of Kelly Bagby’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim. … Brondhaver is entitled to qualified immunity if his conduct did not violate clearly established rights of which a reasonable person would have known.

Silsby v. Foote

55 U.S. 218 · Supreme Court of the United States · Jan 11, 1853

Randall Brickey v. Robb Hall

828 F.3d 298 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Jul 8, 2016

Qualified immunity shields government officials from personal liability when “their conduct does not violate clearly established . . . rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … Hall is therefore entitled to qualified immunity.

JUNKERT v. Massey

610 F.3d 364 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jun 21, 2010

Massey is entitled to qualified immunity for his conduct in applying for a search warrant. See Hinnen v. Kelly, 992 F.2d 140, 144 (7th Cir. 1993). In this context, the test for qualified immunity comes from Malley v. … We have never clearly held that an affidavit materially similar to Massey’s failed to establish probable cause.

Brown v. Nationsbank Corp.

188 F.3d 579 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Sep 8, 1999

engaged in conduct that violated the clearly- established law.” … Qualified immunity Although neither the pleadings, the district court’s order nor the briefs develop the analysis, it is obvious that defendants have a qualified immunity defense to the Bivens claims.

Akeem Washington v. Shannon Rivera

939 F.3d 1239 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Sep 25, 2019

But we conclude that Rivera’s actions did not violate Washington’s clearly established rights, and that she is thus entitled to qualified immunity. … a clearly established right.