Case law

Vives v. The City Of New York

405 F.3d 115 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Apr 29, 2005

Normally, it is only after making such a determination that a court should ask whether the right allegedly implicated was clearly established at the time of the events in question." County of Sacramento v. … any qualified immunity claim.

Richardson v. City of St. Louis

293 S.W.3d 133 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Sep 22, 2009

Burrow’s defense of official immunity is not clearly established by the petition. Arguing, in essence, that the petition does not clearly establish that official immunity bars the claim against Mr. … Because the facts of the petition alone are not adequate to clearly establish the defense of official immunity, the trial court erred in granting Defendants’ motion to dismiss Mr.

Conn v. City of Reno

572 F.3d 1047 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jul 24, 2009

Qualified immunity We next assess whether summary judgment is warranted because the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. … Officers are entitled to qualified immunity if they reasonably misapprehend how the law would govern in their particular situation. Id at 205, 121 S.Ct. 2151 . Qualified immunity is not warranted here.

Gross v. Pirtle

245 F.3d 1151 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Apr 9, 2001

An order denying summary judgment based on qualified immunity necessarily involves a legal determination that certain alleged actions violate clearly established law. Id. at 313. … Gross, we conclude he has failed to establish that Deputy Pirtle’s actions constituted excessive force, and Deputy Pirtle is therefore entitled to qualified immunity as a matter of law.

Stewart v. Baldwin County Board of Education

908 F.2d 1499 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 15, 1990

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY Defendants appeal the refusal of the district court to grant summary judgment in their favor on the basis of their qualified immunity defense. … Dollar, 841 F.2d 1558, 1564 (11th Cir.1988). 1 If the law that the defendants allegedly violated was not clearly established, then the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. See Daniel v.

Danny Ray Heggen v. Gary Lee, Hopkins County Sheriff, in Both His Individual and Official Capacities, Hopkins County, Kentucky

284 F.3d 675 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Mar 20, 2002

Defendant also argues that even if Plaintiffs state a valid claim, he is entitled to qualified immunity because the right of deputy sheriffs in Hopkins County to be protected from patronage dismissals was not clearly established … Defendant argues that he is entitled to qualified immunity because when Plaintiffs were discharged, the law was not clearly established that deputy sheriffs in Hopkins County were protected from patronage dismissals.

Pense v. Md. Dep't of Pub. Safety & Corr. Servs.

926 F.3d 97 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Jun 11, 2019

It is firmly established that we possess jurisdiction for this interlocutory review of the Immunity Decision pursuant to the collateral order doctrine. See P.R. Aqueduct & Sewer Auth. v. … By “draw[ing] upon principles of sovereign immunity,” the Supreme Court has “construe[d] the Amendment to establish that an unconsenting State is immune from suits brought in federal courts by her own citizens as well as

Hartsfield v. Lemacks

50 F.3d 950 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jun 14, 1995

A. 13 This court utilizes a two-part analysis for the defense of qualified immunity. … Alabama A & M University, 28 F.3d 1146, 1149 (11th Cir.1994) (en banc) (citations and footnotes omitted). 18 In Lassiter, we explained that for law to be clearly established in the qualified immunity context, "pre-existing

Michael Bearden v. Dudley Lemon, Individually and in His Official Capacity as the Sheriff of Cleburne County

475 F.3d 926 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Feb 2, 2007

Further, “[t]his court has ... taken a broad view of what constitutes ‘clearly established law’ for the purposes of a qualified immunity inquiry....” Sexton 210 F.3d at 909 (quoting Boswell v. … “[I]f the law claimed to have been violated was clearly established, the qualified immunity defense ordinarily fails, ‘since a reasonably competent public official should know the law governing his conduct.’ ” Id. at 910

Tachias v. Sanders

130 F.4th 836 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Mar 10, 2025

Qualified Immunity’s “Clearly Established” Prong Accepting the district court’s unchallenged conclusion that Sanders’s actions constituted a violation of the Appellees’ First Amendment rights (see ROA at 33), we … now turn to the “clearly established” prong of qualified immunity.

Bell Atlantic Maryland, Inc. v. MCI Worldcom, Inc.

240 F.3d 279 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Feb 14, 2001

These parties argued that the Maryland Public Service Commission had constructively waived its sovereign immunity with respect to this action by participating in the regulatory scheme established by the 1996 Act. … Section 252(e)(5) clearly implies that a State commission need not make determinations under § 252.

Jerry Capps v. David Olson

780 F.3d 879 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Mar 16, 2015

(2) Clearly Established Constitutional Right Even if the jury could conclude a constitutional violation occurred, qualified immunity still protects an officer if the right defined in the specific context … of the case was not clearly established.

Jorge Rivera-Guadalupe v. City of Harrisburg

124 F.4th 295 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Dec 24, 2024

We deny officers qualified immunity for violating clearly established constitutional rights—not for their failure to read tea leaves. This past year, the Supreme Court held in Chiaverini v. … Because the right that Rivera-Guadalupe seeks to vindicate in his malicious prosecution suit was not clearly established at the relevant time, the District Court erred in denying Det. Pierce qualified immunity.

Snyder v. Daugherty

899 F. Supp. 2d 391 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 28, 2012

“An officer conducting a search is entitled to qualified immunity where clearly established law does not show that the search violated the Fourth Amendment. … To this end, the Defendant Officers seek qualified immunity on the grounds that their actions were reasonable 'in light of clearly established federal law.

Charles Daniel Lindsey v. City of Orrick, Missouri, Shirley Taylor

491 F.3d 892 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jun 26, 2007

“Generally, government officials are entitled to qualified immunity under section 1983 when executing discretionary functions, unless the officials violate clearly established law.” Beck, 377 F.3d at 889 . … This court has “taken a broad view of what constitutes ‘clearly established law’ for the purposes of a qualified immunity inquiry.” Sexton, 210 F.3d at 909 (quoting Boswell v.

Roque v. Harvel

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Apr 2, 2021

were clearly established at the time of the violation “such that the officer was on notice of the unlawfulness of his or her conduct.”6 The unique nature and purpose of qualified immunity affects both our jurisdiction … immunity unless his “actions were objectively unreasonable in light of clearly established law at the time of the” shooting.31 The critical question when ascertaining the clearly established law is “whether the state of

Gary v. Crouch

867 So. 2d 310 · Supreme Court of Alabama · May 30, 2003

As police chief, Chief Crouch qualifies as a peace officer. However, Lt. … "'[S]ince the privilege under consideration is merely a qualified one, it is subject to the general rules . . . limiting qualified privileged communications; and there is no privilege where the communication is actuated by

Ashcroft v. al-Kidd

563 U.S. 731 · Supreme Court of the United States · May 31, 2011

II Qualified immunity shields federal and state officials from money damages unless a plaintiff pleads facts showing (1) that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was “clearly … Because Ashcroft did not violate clearly established law, we need not address the more difficult question whether he enjoys absolute immunity.

Colon v. Drew

335 F. App'x 86 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jun 5, 2009

immunity. … The right to be free from deliberate indifference to serious medical injury caused by excessive exposure to ETS is clearly established.

32 Fair empl.prac.cas. 747, 32 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 33,753 Lino Martinez, Cross-Appellant v. El Paso County, Cross-Appellee

710 F.2d 1102 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Aug 1, 1983

The court below correctly concluded that plaintiff established a prima facie case of discrimination. … The foregoing excerpt clearly reveals the error in defendant’s argument.