Case law

Mark Greenman v. Officer Jeremiah Jessen

787 F.3d 882 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · May 28, 2015

Fourth Amendment Violations “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 … “We analyze qualified immunity in two steps: (1) whether the facts that a plaintiff has alleged . . . make out a violation of a constitutional right; and (2) whether the right at issue was clearly established at the time

Acierno v. Cloutier

40 F.3d 597 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Oct 18, 1994

immunity is to examine whether the plaintiff has "allege[d] the violation of a clearly established constitutional right." … In a recent discussion of the "clearly established" right aspect of the qualified immunity determination, we stated: 75 The right an official is alleged to have violated must have been "clearly established" in a "particularized

Sam Thurmond, Sr. v. Gary Andrews

972 F.3d 1007 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Aug 28, 2020

A grant of qualified immunity is inappropriate, absent an obvious violation, if the right was not clearly established. … The right in question, even if properly defined, was not clearly established. As such, a grant of qualified immunity was appropriate.

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.

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.

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.’”

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

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.

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

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.

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

LaShay v. DEPT. OF SOCIAL & REHAB. SERV.

625 A.2d 224 · Supreme Court of Vermont · Jan 15, 1993

We have recognized two degrees of official immunity: absolute *227 immunity and qualified immunity. Id., 151 Vt. at 184-85 , 559 A.2d at 1078 . … "Good faith exists where an official's acts did not violate clearly established rights of which the official reasonably should have known." Murray v. White, 155 Vt. 621, 630 , 587 A.2d 975, 980 (1991).

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

Anna Wealot v. Alvin Brooks

865 F.3d 1119 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Aug 4, 2017

Section 1983 Claims Qualified immunity protects government officials from incurring civil liability as long as “‘their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … To overcome the shield of qualified immunity, a plaintiffs claim must state a violation of a clearly established federal right, and that right must have been clearly established at the time of the violation. See Nord v.

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.

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.

Elaine Thompson v. Ulenzen King

730 F.3d 742 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Sep 20, 2013

a constitutional or statutory right; and (2) [whether] the right was clearly established at the time of the deprivation." … Therefore, because the constitutional right was clearly established, the district court properly denied Officer King qualified immunity. III.

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

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.