Case law

Rooks v. Santiago

District Court, D. Connecticut · Jun 1, 2021

Moreover, qualified immunity “protects government officials ‘from liability for civil damages in so far as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … Leonard, 282 F.3d 123, 134 (2d Cir. 2002) (qualified immunity requires showing that official violated clearly established law).

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.

Travers v. Jones

323 F.3d 1294 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Mar 11, 2003

The law is clearly established that an employer may not demote or discharge a public employee for engaging in protected speech. See Rankin v. … CEO Jones and Chief Wilder are entitled to qualified immunity. REVERSED.

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

Zachary Church v. Bob Anderson

898 F.3d 830 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Aug 3, 2018

We review de novo a decision granting summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity. Burton v. St. Louis Bd. of Police Comm’rs, 731 F.3d 784, 791 (8th Cir. 2013). … clearly established at the time of the violation.

Gerald R. Wollin v. Bruce Gondert, Deputy Sheriff, Joseph Seidel, Deputy Sheriff and Jefferson County, Wisconsin

192 F.3d 616 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Sep 2, 1999

“Thus ... a qualified immunity analysis entails a purely objective inquiry to determine whether at the time of the alleged illegal act, the right asserted by the plaintiff was clearly established in the particular factual … Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity protects government officials from liability for civil damages “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”

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

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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

Aldaba v. Marshall County

777 F.3d 1148 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Feb 4, 2015

Qualified Immunity: General Policies “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 … In its sole reference to the second prong of qualified immunity—clearly established law—the district court simply noted that “[t]he reasonableness standard is clearly established for the purposes of a section 1983 action

E.W. v. Rosemary Dolgos

884 F.3d 172 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Feb 12, 2018

Qualified immunity shields government officials from liability in a § 1983 suit so long as their conduct did not violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known … We emphasize, however, that our excessive force holding is clearly established for any future qualified immunity cases involving similar circumstances.

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

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).

Jessica Jauch v. Choctaw County

874 F.3d 425 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Oct 24, 2017

Qualified Immunity and Sheriff Halford Sheriff Halford asserts qualified immunity. Jauch bears the burden of showing that he is not so entitled. Hanks v. Rogers, 853 F.3d 738, 744 (5th Cir. 2017). … Tellingly, Sheriff Halford’s arguments relating to qualified immunity do not even mention Jones.

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.”

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.