Case law

Howe v. Baker

796 F.2d 1355 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 28, 1986

These concerns, weighty though they may be, do not justify granting officials an absolute immunity. Instead, they can be satisfied through application of a qualified immunity. Harlow v. … established.

Boydston v. New Mexico Taxation and Revenue Dept.

125 F.3d 861 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Oct 3, 1997

, we need not address whether defendants were entitled to qualified immunity. … Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982) (in qualified immunity inquiry, plaintiff must demonstrate that government official violated a clearly established constitutional right of which a reasonable person would have known).

Arthur Jackson v. State of Mississippi

644 F.2d 1142 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · May 14, 1981

We also expounded the two alternative means by which a plaintiff can overcome the qualified immunity defense. … If the plaintiff can show that he had a clearly established constitutional right that the defendants knew or should have known of, and that they knew or should have known that their conduct violated that right, the immunity

Monteiro v. City of Elizabeth

436 F.3d 397 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Feb 8, 2006

Perkins-Auguste as a reasonable public official would have known that her specific conduct violated the Plaintiffs clearly established rights and was not subject to qualified immunity. … Thus, if Perkins-Auguste acted with an intent to suppress Monteiro’s speech on the basis of viewpoint, she violated clearly established law and is not entitled to qualified immunity.

Garcia v. Jane & John Does

Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Feb 23, 2015

Qualified Immunity “Qualified immunity protects public officials from liability for civil damages when one of two conditions is satisfied: (a) the defendant’s action did not violate clearly established law, or ( … Defendants bear the burden of establishing qualified immunity.  Vincent v. Yelich, 718 F.3d 157, 166 (2d Cir. 2013).  

Sharon L. Gragg v. Kentucky Cabinet For Workforce Development

289 F.3d 958 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · May 20, 2002

She must then demonstrate that this right was clearly established at the time of the infringement. … Whether the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity on such a claim, however, is 5 To determine whether the claimed right under the Kentucky Constitution was clearly established, we would, of course, look to the law

Bieros v. Nicola

839 F. Supp. 332 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 9, 1993

or administrative duties, then they are only entitled to a qualified, good-faith immunity. … A qualified immunity only protects defendants if it can be shown .that they did not violate any clearly established constitutional or statutory rights of which a reasonable person would have known.

Powell v. Miller

849 F.3d 1286 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Mar 7, 2017

It is well established that a district court’s pretrial denial of a qualified immunity defense, to the extent it turns on an issue of law, is an appealable “final decision” within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1291. … Pelletier, 516 U.S. 299, 307 (1996) (“Thus, Mitchell clearly establishes that an order rejecting the defense of qualified immunity at either the dismissal stage or the summary judgment stage is a ‘final’ judgment subject

In Re Quester Sterling-Suarez

323 F.3d 1 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Mar 4, 2003

This fol *2 lowed a determination by the district judge that Laws personally would qualify as learned counsel because, other qualifications aside, he had recently served as co-counsel in a death penalty case, albeit one that … Questions as to who qualifies as learned counsel were not resolved in the proceeding leading up to the writ, and their resolution by the district court cannot violate our prior order. 2 Whether Laws does qualify as learned

Noelle Way v. County of Ventura Robert Brooks Karen Hanson

348 F.3d 808 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Oct 31, 2003

alleged; second, assuming the violation is established, the question whether the right was clearly established must be considered on a more specific level.” … It is likewise beyond dispute that multiple appeals are possible in certain circumstances: “Mitchell clearly establishes that an order rejecting the defense of qualified immunity at either the dismissal stage or the summary

Thomas v. Kaven

765 F.3d 1183 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Aug 26, 2014

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity protects officials “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … care under those circumstances was not clearly established.

Eclophia Smith, Jr. v. James Marcantonio, Bill Armontrout, Donald Cline, Orolee Brady, Dick Moore, Dr. Richard K. Bowers

910 F.2d 500 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Aug 6, 1990

Prison officials are entitled to qualified immunity unless: their conduct violates a clearly established statutory or constitutional right; they knew or should have known the right was clearly established; and they knew or … White, 762 F.2d 635 , 637 (8th Cir.1985), Marcantonio and Brady are entitled to a summary judgment grant of qualified immunity. Smith’s claim that Dr.

Swanson v. Powers

937 F.2d 965 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Jun 25, 1991

Powers moved to dismiss the suit against her on the grounds of qualified immunity. … The requirement, after all, is that the law be clearly established, not simply possibly established or even probably established.

Ivan Swearingen v. Karl Judd

930 F.3d 983 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jul 18, 2019

Qualified immunity protects government officials from suit under § 1983 if their “conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. … “clearly established.”

Carrie Sama v. Edward Hannigan

669 F.3d 585 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Feb 3, 2012

Callahan, we may analyze and resolve this issue under the “clearly established” prong of the qualified immunity test. 20 Because Sama did not meet her burden of demonstrating Benoit’s and Hannigan’s conduct was not objectively … Their motion for summary judgment asserted that "[t]he bifurcated test for qualified immunity requires examination of (a) whether the plaintiff has alleged a violation of a clearly established constitutional right; and (b

Cornelius Marshall v. Wilbert Allen, Richard Anderson, and Anthony J. Fusco, Jr.

984 F.2d 787 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Feb 25, 1993

If it were not clearly established that their conduct violated the law at the time the officials allegedly acted, then they are entitled to qualified immunity. Siegert v. … The only one of the defendant’s claims that is properly before this court is whether they were entitled to qualified immunity because it was not clearly established that Mr.

Martel v. County of Los Angeles

21 F.3d 940 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Apr 12, 1994

That is clearly sufficient to meet the Lane requirement. … Because the violation here clearly prejudiced Martel’s ability to prepare his case, we must reverse. III.

Brenda Mason v. City of Lafayette

929 F.3d 762 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jul 17, 2019

Ct. 548, 551 (2017) (to overcome qualified immunity, there must be “clearly established law” that is “particularized to the facts of the case.”) (citations omitted). … And qualified immunity must be rejected where the facts found by the jury demonstrate not only a constitutional violation but also that the law was clearly established such that the officer’s conduct was objectively unreasonable

Rogers Vann v. City of Southaven

884 F.3d 307 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Mar 5, 2018

“A qualified immunity defense alters the usual summary judgment burden of proof. … Under these circumstances, Jones’s use of force did not violate clearly established law.

Simmons v. City of Paris Texas

378 F.3d 476 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jul 20, 2004

On an appeal of an interlocutory order denying a claim of qualified immunity, our review is unusually circumscribed. … Because defendants do not contest that this qualifies as a clearly established constitutional norm, we can assume, and so hold, that it qualifies and proceed to the question of whether there is conflicting evidence that