Case law

Jeffrey Tokar v. Bill Armontrout Robert Drennen Myrna E. Trickey

97 F.3d 1078 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Oct 8, 1996

After the stay was lifted, in 1993 appellees filed a motion for summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds, asserting that they had not violated any clearly established right by segregating Tokar on the basis of his HIV-positive … The district court held that appellees were entitled to qualified immunity on this issue, concluding that during the times in 1989 and 1991 that Tokar was segregated in Unit Six he had no clearly established constitutional

Giacalone v. Abrams

850 F.2d 79 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Aug 17, 1988

Finally, the court denied the defendants' motion to dismiss on grounds of qualified immunity, holding that the First Amendment implications of their conduct were clearly established. 3 The defendants bring this interlocutory … qualified immunity.

Covell Ex Rel. Johnson v. County of Oswego

165 F. Supp. 2d 241 · District Court, N.D. New York · Sep 5, 2001

of the qualified immunity standard. … established prong” of the qualified immunity standard.

Kenneth H. Swipies v. Frank Kofka

Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Nov 3, 2003

An officer is entitled to qualified immunity unless his conduct violated clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. See Harlow v. … established.

James Williams v. Brian Maurer

9 F.4th 416 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 17, 2021

Clearly Established Right At the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis, Plaintiffs bear the burden of showing that Defendants’ unconstitutional conduct violated clearly established law. … clearly established.

Kaufman v. Higgs

697 F.3d 1297 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Oct 23, 2012

“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 a reasonable … Accordingly, to defeat an assertion of qualified immunity in a summary judgment motion, a plaintiff must properly allege a deprivation of a constitutional right and must further show that the constitutional right was clearly

Riverdale Mills Corp. v. Pimpare

392 F.3d 55 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Dec 22, 2004

of a constitutional right; second whether the constitutional right allegedly violated was clearly established; and third whether the defendants nonetheless deserve qualified immunity because their … Layne, 526 U.S. 603, 614-15 (1999) ("It could plausibly be asserted that any violation of the Fourth Amendment is 'clearly established,' since it is clearly established that the protections of the Fourth Amendment apply

Myers v. Oklahoma County Board Of County Commissioners

151 F.3d 1313 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Aug 20, 1998

Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 , 102 S.Ct. 2727 , 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982) (stating that an official is protected by qualified immunity if the officer's actions were objectively reasonable in light of clearly established legal … Although individual officers may receive the protection of qualified immunity, "municipalities enjoy no such shield." Watson, 857 F.2d at 697 .

Williams v. Hansen

326 F.3d 569 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Apr 22, 2003

action is a violation) violates a clearly established right. … Plaintiffs would be able to convert the rule of qualified immunity that our cases plainly establish into a rule of virtually unqualified liability simply by alleging violation of extremely abstract rights.

Trinidad Roure v. Rafael Hernandez Colon, Etc.

824 F.2d 139 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Jul 24, 1987

The question before us on this interlocutory appeal is whether “the incorrectness of [defendants’] conduct was clearly established,” see DeAbadia v. … Defendants’ position that the appointments were void, even if correct as a matter of Puerto Rico law, does not establish that defendants are entitled to qualified immunity with respect to plaintiffs’ First Amendment claims

Youngbey v. March

676 F.3d 1114 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Apr 17, 2012

They further claim that, even if their actions are determined to be unconstitutional, they are nonetheless entitled to qualified immunity because they did not violate clearly established law. … Conclusion Appellants are entitled to qualified immunity because neither their no-knock entry of appellees’ home nor their nighttime search violated “clearly established law.”

Medina v. Cram

252 F.3d 1124 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jun 12, 2001

An order denying summary judgment based on qualified immunity necessarily involves a legal determination that certain alleged actions violate clearly established law. … officer violated a clearly established right.

Steen v. City of Pensacola

809 F. Supp. 2d 1342 · District Court, N.D. Florida · Aug 22, 2011

Qualified Immunity “The qualified immunity defense ‘shields government agents from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … I will simply assume arguendo that there was a constitutional violation and proceed to the second step of the qualified immunity analysis. 2. Was the right “clearly established” at the time of the violation?

Mayfield v. Bethards

826 F.3d 1252 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jun 20, 2016

Whether a plaintiff has sufficiently “alleged a violation of his clearly established constitutional rights to overcome [the defendant’s] defense of qualified immunity is an issue of law reviewable on interlocutory appeal … Qualified immunity protects government officials from suit for civil damages if their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights. Thomas v.

Johnny Tlapanco v. Jonathan Elges

969 F.3d 638 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 12, 2020

These violations were of clearly established law. Elges, therefore, is not entitled to qualified immunity on these federal claims. … Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 236–37 (2009) (permitting federal courts to skip to the clearly established prong of the qualified immunity analysis).

Ruta Marie Kahn v. Immigration and Naturalization Service

20 F.3d 960 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Mar 25, 1994

II The Board, acting on behalf of the Attorney General, may establish standards to guide the exercise of discretion in granting waivers of deportation under § 212(c) “as long as [they] are rationally related to the statutory … Nonetheless, it was clearly a significant one.

Sockwell v. Phelps

20 F.3d 187 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · May 10, 1994

established in the opinions rendered by Judge Johnson in Washington v. … We further hold that Phelps and Blackburn are not protected under qualified immunity, due to their knowing and intentional participation in a general policy of racial segregation 5 The Tenth Circuit specifically

Ellen Keates v. Michael Koile

883 F.3d 1228 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Mar 6, 2018

But on the other hand, defendants are entitled to qualified immunity so long as “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … KOILE Turning to the second prong of the qualified immunity inquiry, “whether the right was clearly established,” Saucier, 533 U.S. at 201, we must determine whether it was so clear that Koile’s actions violated Keates

Aisenberg v. Hillsborough County Sheriff's Office

325 F. Supp. 2d 1366 · District Court, M.D. Florida · Jul 16, 2004

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity protects a prosecutor’s discretionary acts that violate no “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … See Gonzalez, 325 F.3d at 1233-34 (qualified immunity requires dismissal of an action if the complaint “fails to allege the violation of a clearly established constitutional right”).

Doe Ex Rel. Doe v. State

200 Ariz. 174 · Arizona Supreme Court · May 30, 2001

The processing of a particular application in accordance with established procedures, however, does not involve the determination of fundamental governmental policy and therefore enjoys only qualified immunity under A.R.S … Second, section 12-820.02.5 accords qualified immunity to the issuance of any license “for which absolute immunity is not provided pursuant to § 12-820.01.”