Case law

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

Elizabeth Hannula v. City of Lakewood and Jane Doe, and Don Lively

907 F.2d 129 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jun 29, 1990

the defendant has violated clearly established law. … If the plaintiff fails to meet the burden of showing how a defendant violated a clearly established right, we must prevent the plaintiff from subjecting government officials to trial: [qualified immunity is an] entitlement

Brown v. Ives

129 F.3d 209 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Nov 10, 1997

The district court held that neither the reputational nor associational rights asserted by Warren Brown were "clearly established" to the extent needed to overcome qualified immunity, and the court also held … "[G]overnment officials performing discretionary functions, generally are shielded [by qualified immunity] from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established

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

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

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

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.”

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).

Maus v. Lade

District Court, E.D. Wisconsin · Mar 10, 2020

Nor is Lade entitled to qualified immunity. … Wesby, 138 S.Ct. 577, 589 (2018) (explaining that officers are not entitled to qualified immunity if the unlawfulness of their conduct was clearly established at the time).

Michael Sauers v. Borough of Nesquehoning

905 F.3d 711 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Oct 2, 2018

the District Court's denial of qualified immunity. … In its recent decisions addressing qualified immunity, the Supreme Court has "repeatedly told courts ... not to define clearly established law at a high level of generality." Kisela v.

Ernest D. Johnson v. Brian Breeden

280 F.3d 1308 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jan 28, 2002

In McMillian we affirmed the denial of summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds, holding that prior decisions had clearly established the law that pretrial detention amounting to punishment violated due process, and … So, where this type of constitutional violation is established there is no room for qualified immunity.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

Willie G. Harris v. Coweta County, a Political Subdivision of the State of Georgia, Larry T. Hammett, Sheriff of Coweta Co.

21 F.3d 388 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · May 23, 1994

The district court’s order in relevant part denied the Sheriffs motion for summary judgment based on qualified immunity. 1 The *390 court ruled that the prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment was “undoubtedly clearly … For purposes of qualified immunity, a legal norm is clearly established when “the right the official is alleged to have violated [was] ‘clearly established’ in a more particularized, and hence more relevant, sense: The contours