Case law

Huey P. McDuffie v. W.J. Estelle, Jr.

935 F.2d 682 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jul 15, 1991

We therefore hold that Ruiz does not foreclose relitigation of the due process issue via the Committee officials’ qualified immunity plea. 10 (ii) Clearly Established Law — Disciplinary Proceedings Thus, we must look to see … Cannatella, 810 F.2d 1363, 1374 (5th Cir.1987) (qualified immunity accorded to official insofar as conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known

Robert Jackson v. Richard J. Elrod

881 F.2d 441 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Aug 7, 1989

Their conduct clearly violated the law established in Bell , therefore the doctrine of qualified immunity does not protect them from liability for damages for the book rejections.” Jackson v. … The defendants here claim qualified immunity because the case law did not clearly establish that it was a denial of a pretrial detainee’s First Amendment rights to ban his receipt of all hard-back books, regardless of the

Tanner Griggs v. Charley Brewer

841 F.3d 308 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Oct 28, 2016

“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 person … Because our analysis is under the defense of qualified immunity, the question is whether Brewer’s conduct was clearly unreasonable in the light of clearly established law.

Segrain v. Duffy

118 F.4th 45 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Sep 23, 2024

established, preventing an award of qualified immunity"); Tedder, 527 F. … Furthermore, qualified immunity protects government officials sued in their individual capacities against claims for monetary damages for violations of clearly established statutory or constitutional rights.

Koser v. County of Price

834 F. Supp. 305 · District Court, W.D. Wisconsin · Oct 7, 1993

OPINION Qualified immunity I begin with defendants’ contention that the individual defendants are entitled to qualified immunity because their arrests of plaintiff did not violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional … I conclude that it is necessary to reserve a ruling on the issue of qualified immunity until after trial.

A. D. v. State of Calif. Highway Patrol

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Apr 3, 2013

The Court then rejected the notion that the law, defined at such a level of generality, was “clearly established” for qualified immunity purposes. … Markgraf is not entitled to qualified immunity, because Plaintiffs have shown that he violated the foregoing clearly established law.

Skoog v. County of Clackamas

469 F.3d 1221 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Nov 20, 2006

9 If the answer is no, the officer is entitled to qualified immunity. … At some future point, this right will become clearly established in this Circuit.

Suttles v. Roy

75 So. 3d 90 · Supreme Court of Alabama · May 21, 2010

Is it a question of law for the court (as is the similar defense of qualified immunity in federal actions under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 ) or a question of fact for the jury whether Suttles is entitled to such immunity? … Floyd, 667 So.2d 56, 64 (Ala.1995) (“The question whether a public official is entitled to qualified immunity is one to be decided as a matter of law.”).

Kathy Dyer v. City of Mesquite Texas

964 F.3d 374 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jul 6, 2020

clearly established law.’” … Turning to prong two of the qualified immunity standard, we ask whether there are genuine disputes of material fact as to whether “the unlawfulness of the [Officers’] conduct was ‘clearly established at the time.’”

George Owens v. Matthew J. Frank

394 F.3d 490 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jan 6, 2005

, but ‘an unreasonable application’ of clearly established federal law, or based on ‘an unreasonable determination of the facts’ (emphasis added).”); Dixon v. … Section 2254(d)(1) provides that habeas relief shall not be afforded unless a state court reached a result "that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined

Ronald S. Biddle v. Amy J. Martin and Paul Lehmann

992 F.2d 673 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Apr 22, 1993

The court also found that because the arrest was reasonable, the officers violated no clearly established constitutional rights, and consequently were entitled to qualified immunity for their actions. … In this case, then, qualified immunity shields the defendant police officers from Biddle’s damage action if “a reasonable officer could have believed [Biddle’s arrest] to be lawful, in light of clearly established law and

Soto v. Gaudett

862 F.3d 148 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jul 5, 2017

or constitutional right that was clearly established at 19 the time of the challenged conduct.'" … The Taser Deployments by Stepniewski and Robinson 7 Although Stepniewski and Robinson argue that they too were entitled to summary 8 judgment based on qualified immunity because it was not clearly established

Vondrak v. City of Las Cruces

535 F.3d 1198 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Aug 5, 2008

We have held that, for a right to be clearly established, “there must be a Supreme Court or Tenth Circuit decision on point, or the clearly established weight of authority from other courts must have found the law to be as … right that was allegedly violated was ‘clearly established.’ ” Id.

Sanders v. Howze

177 F.3d 1245 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jun 14, 1999

Under the qualified immunity doctrine, government officials performing discretionary functions are immune not just from liability, but from suit, unless the conduct which is the basis for suit violates clearly established … To overcome the defendants’ qualified immunity, plaintiffs must establish that the defendants’ conduct violated a clearly established statutory or constitutional right of which

Burnham v. Ianni

119 F.3d 668 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jul 11, 1997

Long, 72 F.3d 70, 73 (8th Cir.1995), "[t]his court has taken a broad view of what constitutes 'clearly established law' for the purposes of a qualified immunity inquiry." … test, it can rarely be considered 'clearly established' for purposes of the Harlow qualified immunity standard." 21 Id. at 916 (emphasis added) (quoted in Grantham v.

Travis Rickey Childress, Slaton Jenkins Childress, Gary Dennis Childress v. Small Business Administration, A.G. McClearen and Clyde Rice, Jr.

825 F.2d 1550 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 31, 1987

We nonetheless conclude that appellants were entitled to qualified immunity for their actions because they did not act to deny the Childresses this property interest in violation of a clearly-established constitutional norm … “Unless the plaintiff’s allegations state a claim of violation of clearly established law, a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal before the commencement of discovery.” Id. at 2816.

Luis O. Juarbe-Angueira v. Luis Rafael Arias, Director of the Public Building Authority

831 F.2d 11 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Sep 29, 1987

the law defining those rights was “clearly established in plaintiff’s favor.” … And, we have said more specifically that a defendant faced with a political discharge claim enjoys qualified immunity unless, at the time of dismissal, “it was clearly established that employees in the particular positions

Andres M. Martinez v. G.D. Stanford W. Owen M. Atkinson D. Rockholt J. Stovall

323 F.3d 1178 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Mar 26, 2003

Martinez’s attorney declares that she assumed that the officers’ motion would be denied because Saucier did not establish the officers’ qualified immunity as a matter of law. … The district court correctly stated the two-part test for qualified immunity announced in Saucier v.

Victor George Bryant v. William R. Muth Gregg Robbins

994 F.2d 1082 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · May 24, 1993

The district court held that Muth and Robbins were not entitled to qualified immunity and that, even though Bryant had no constitutional right to , possess the contraband disks, he did have a clearly established constitutional … Once the defendant raises, a qualified immunity defense, the plaintiff carries the burden of showing that the defendant’s alleged conduct violated the law and that such law was clearly established when the alleged violation

Cárdenas v. Muangman

998 A.2d 303 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jun 17, 2010

Analysis of Appellants’ Expert’s Testimony Because the requirements for qualifying an expert to testify and assessing the qualified expert’s testimony for sufficiency overlap, they are susceptible to being confused. … apply District of Columbia law (and therefore allow Camacho’s claim to proceed) under the conflict of laws analysis used in that state. 10 The “potential interests of the jurisdictions involved,” Stutsman, 546 A.2d at 374, clearly