Case 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

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

McFall v. Bednar

407 F.3d 1081 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Apr 19, 2005

Bednar is entitled to qualified immunity, therefore, unless he violated a clearly established constitutional right. … McFall’s termination violated clearly established law Mr. Bednar violated clearly established law, and thus is not entitled to qualified immunity, if he terminated Ms.

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.

George A. Williams v. Cons. City of Jacksonville

381 F.3d 1298 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 27, 2004

We denied Davis qualified immunity against this claim, holding that “the laws allegedly violated by Commissioner Davis were clearly established.” Id. at 1064. … Furthermore, if the “clearly established” prong of the qualified immunity test is interpreted unduly strictly, it will effectively prevent further development of wide areas of constitutional law.

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).

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.

Dwain Barton v. Officer Martin

949 F.3d 938 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Feb 7, 2020

These violations were of clearly established law. Vann, therefore, is not entitled to qualified immunity for all three federal claims. … Qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which

Thorne v. City of El Segundo

802 F.2d 1131 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Oct 20, 1986

. § 1983 claim against the individual defendants on grounds of qualified good faith immunity. The City of El Segundo cross-appeals the award of attorneys’ fees to Thorne in the amount of $34,900. … Qualified Immunity Government officials performing discretionary functions are shielded from liability for civil damages if their conduct does not violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a

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.

Curley v. Klem

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Aug 24, 2007

a clearly established constitutional right.” … Whether a right was clearly established is the “key immunity question”; we have never permitted a jury to answer that question.

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

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.

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

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.