-
916 F.3d 1023 Federal Circuit February 21, 2019 Nos. 2018-1293, 2018-1396
Cir. 2011) (assessing "clearly established" law in the qualified immunity context by "look[ing] to cases from the Supreme Court and [the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C.
Vivo , 656 F.3d 772 , 775 (7th Cir. 2011) (suggesting that a right is not clearly established for qualified immunity purposes "[w]here the law is open to interpretation" and one could "reasonably interpret an unclear statute
Pauly , --- U.S. ----, 137 S.Ct. 548 , 551, 196 L.Ed.2d 463 (2017) (stating that, in the qualified immunity context, a right is "clearly established" if "existing precedent ... placed the statutory or constitutional question
-
168 F.3d 32 Federal Circuit February 12, 1999 No. 98-7035
Scherer, 468 U.S. 183 , 104 S.Ct. 3012 , 82 L.Ed.2d 139 (1984) (“to defeat qualified immunity, the federal right on which the claim for relief is based ... must be clearly established”) in reaching its holding that cases unmentioned
In reviewing the decision of the court of appeals, the Court clarified that Davis did not concern what authorities a court may consider in determining qualified immunity. See Elder at 515, 114 S.Ct. 1019 .
-
691 F.3d 1356 Federal Circuit July 26, 2012 No. 2011-1308Cited by 18 Dissent · Newman
First, as recognized by the Court, the commission’s appeal in Swint was “unrelated” to the individual defendants’ qualified immunity appeal, such that no efficiency would be gained by consolidated review. 514 U.S. at 51 , 115 S.Ct.
1203 (“The individual defendants’ qualified immunity turns on whether they violated clearly established federal law; the county commission’s liability turns on the allocation of law enforcement power in Alabama.
The individual defendants’ qualified immunity turns on whether they violated clearly established federal law; the county commission’s liability turns on the allocation of law enforcement power in Alabama.