-
225 F.3d 440 Fourth Circuit August 29, 2000 Nos. 99-1893, 99-1894Cited by 171 Concurring in Part, Dissenting in Part · Williams
, and because I am further convinced that such an expectation was not clearly established, I respectfully dissent from the majority’s conclusion that BroderiCk is not entitled to qualified immunity.
] a ‘clearly established’ constitutional standard” and was thus entitled to qualified immunity. See id. at 779.
clearly established.
-
45 F.3d 790 Fourth Circuit February 2, 1995 No. 94-1569
Only then did the court address the qualified immunity issue, holding that qualified immunity must apply because the legal rule adopted for the first time in that case could not have been clearly established at the time of the defendant
The term “clearly established” has an acquired meaning referencing qualified immunity, with its focus on law at the time of the challenged conduct.
may make it more difficult to find the law ‘clearly established’ when assessing claims of qualified immunity.”); Borucki v.
-
767 F.3d 379 Fourth Circuit September 24, 2014 No. 12-2173Cited by 921 Concurring in Part, Dissenting in Part · Traxler
Second, I would conclude that the district court correctly determined that the individual defendants were entitled to qualified immunity because it was not clearly established in the spring of 1988 that a police officer’s failure to
To satisfy the “clearly established” prong of the qualified immunity analysis, “a right must be sufficiently clear that every reasonable official would have understood that what he is doing violates that right.” Reichle v.
Accordingly, for qualified immunity to be overcome, it must have been clearly established at least by early 1988 that a police officer violated a criminal defendant’s due process rights by failing to furnish exculpatory evidence to
-
652 F.3d 524 Fourth Circuit July 14, 2011 No. 08-7433ACited by 684 Dissent · Niemeyer
immunity standard of reasonableness of an officer’s awareness or understanding of clearly established law; and (3) the reasonable-man standard for the common law tort of negligence.
To determine whether Officer Purnell enjoyed qualified immunity, the dispositive inquiry would have to be whether a reasonable officer, in light of clearly established law, could reasonably believe that his actions were lawful.
In the language of the qualified immunity standard, he could not have “reasonably believed” or “reasonably anticipated” that his actions would violate clearly established law.
-
973 F.2d 307 Fourth Circuit August 19, 1992 No. 91-1652
Ruling on a defense of qualified immunity therefore requires (1) identification of the specific right allegedly violated; (2) determining whether at the time of the alleged violation the right was clearly established; and (3) if so
The fact that an exact right allegedly violated has not earlier been specifically recognized by any court does not prevent a determination that it was nevertheless “clearly established” for qualified immunity purposes.
But as earlier noted, a specific prior adjudication of right is not necessary to make it one “clearly established” for qualified immunity purposes.
-
855 F.3d 533 Fourth Circuit April 28, 2017 No. 15-7679
The district court found that Booker’s First Amendment right to be free from retaliation for filing a grievance was not clearly established, and it accordingly held that Appellees were entitled to qualified immunity and granted summary
Qualified immunity protects officials “who commit constitutional violations *538 but who, in light of clearly established law, could reasonably believe that their actions were lawful.” Id.
established law for purposes of adjudging entitlement to qualified immunity.”
-
54 F.3d 1169 Fourth Circuit May 30, 1995 No. 93-2125Cited by 162 Dissent · Russell
Creighton, 483 U.S. 635 , 107 S.Ct. 3034 , 97 L.Ed.2d 523 (1987), the Supreme Court recognized that the operation of the qualified immunity standard depended upon the level of generality at which the law is clearly established.
The Supreme Court recognized, however, that a state official could never assert the defense of qualified immunity if the test of “clearly established law” were applied at that level of generality.
qualified immunity purposes.”).
-
141 F.3d 111 Fourth Circuit April 8, 1998 Nos. 96-1185, 96-1188
Furthermore, the district court refused to accept the officers’ alternative argument that, at a minimum, they were entitled to qualified immunity because in April 1992, the law was not clearly established that permitting members of
Government officials performing discretionary functions are entitled to qualified immunity from liability for civil damages to the extent that “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of
Talladega City Bd. of Educ., 115 F.3d 821 , 826 n. 4 (11th Cir.1997) (en banc) (explaining that “the law can be ‘clearly established’ for qualified immunity purposes only by decisions of the U.S.
-
328 F. App'x 204 Fourth Circuit May 14, 2009 No. 08-1105Cited by 9 Unpublished
upon were clearly established.
If we determine that a constitutional right has been violated, only then do we assess whether the right was “clearly established” under existing law (the “clearly established prong” of the qualified immunity analysis). Id.
The “clearly established” prong of the qualified immunity analysis turns on “the objective legal reasonableness of the action, assessed in light of the legal rules that were clearly established at the time it was taken.”
-
848 F.2d 440 Fourth Circuit May 3, 1988 No. 86-3628
We affirm the denial of qualified immunity as to Dammon and Edwards because the record raises a triable issue as to whether their conduct in performing a series of administrative searches at Rosie’s violated clearly established Fourth
Of course, if the plaintiff fails to allege “a violation of clearly established law, a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal before the commencement of discovery.”
The purposes of qualified immunity are well stated in Harlow : “[w]here an official’s duties legitimately require action in which clearly established rights are not implicated, the public interest may be better served by action taken
-
119 F.3d 1129 Fourth Circuit August 8, 1997 No. 96-1464
They would extend the powerful protection afforded by the qualified immunity doctrine to employees committing acts clearly established to be beyond the scope of official duties.
policy reason requires that qualified immunity be afforded government employees who have acted in a way clearly established to be beyond the scope of their official duties.
immunity even by violating clearly established state law, id. at 194 , 104 S.Ct. at 3019 .
-
535 F.3d 225 Fourth Circuit August 6, 2008 No. 07-7569
We therefore dismiss the appeal in part, and affirm the district court’s denial of qualified immunity in part, because Plaintiffs have alleged facts sufficient to show that the officers violated certain of Iko’s clearly established
The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials from liability for violations of constitutional rights that were not clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct. Harlow v.
Shreve’s claim of qualified immunity on this claim, finding that Lt. Shreve violated Iko’s clearly established right to be free from excessive force. We agree. 1.
-
930 F.3d 640 Fourth Circuit July 19, 2019 No. 18-1733
Qualified immunity shields state actors from liability under § 1983 liability when their "conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known." Wiley v.
If the answer to either question is "no," then the defendant is entitled to qualified immunity. In this case, we begin by asking whether the right asserted by Turner was clearly established at the time of its alleged violation.
Because there was no clearly established law imposing liability based on deliberate indifference in this context, qualified immunity shields Thomas and Flaherty from such liability.
-
919 F.2d 243 Fourth Circuit January 9, 1991 No. 88-1746
It decided, therefore, that “plaintiff’s allegations fail to state a claim of violation of clearly-established law and defendants are ... protected by qualified immunity.” Mitchell v.
If there exists a “legitimate question” as to whether particular conduct violates a particular right then the right is not clearly established and qualified immunity applies. See Tarantino v.
The district court, therefore, was correct in finding that the appellees did not violate “clearly established” law and were thus protected from suit by qualified immunity.
-
727 F.3d 312 Fourth Circuit August 14, 2013 No. 12-6705
We do possess jurisdiction to consider this appeal from the denial of qualified immunity to the extent that Crum claims that his conduct did not violate clearly established law. See Winfield v.
His argument is that he is entitled to qualified immunity because Hill’s claimed constitutional violation was not clearly established at the time of the assault.
Therefore, the right he seeks to avail himself of was not clearly established in the Fourth Circuit at the time of the alleged assault. Consequently, Crum is entitled to qualified immunity. IV.
-
275 F.3d 391 Fourth Circuit December 28, 2001 No. 00-2260Cited by 720 Concurring in Part, Dissenting in Part · Michael
I respectfully disagree, however, with the majority’s view that the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity because there was no clearly established law saying that one co-user’s consent to search a computer does not extend to
Qualified immunity shields a government official from civil liability so long as his conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v.
In deciding whether a right is clearly established for qualified immunity purposes, the question is not whether the general right (here, the right to be free from unreasonable searches) is clearly established.
-
134 F.3d 260 Fourth Circuit January 15, 1998 No. 97-1218
First, she claims that the police officers violated clearly established law when they seized and transported her to WAH without probable cause and, therefore, are not entitled to qualified immunity.
Thus, to defeat a qualified immunity defense, Peller must show that the right allegedly violated was “clearly established” in more than just a general sense.
To be clearly established for purposes of qualified immunity, “[t]he contours of the right must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that right.”
-
848 F.3d 576 Fourth Circuit February 15, 2017 No. 16-1039
Because the first two prongs of the test are questions of law, an employer is entitled to qualified immunity if either prong cannot be resolved under clearly established law.
“[Qualified immunity protects government officials ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as then-conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’”
To defeat a qualified immunity defense, a plaintiff must show “(1) that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was ‘clearly established’ at the time of the challenged conduct.”
-
876 F.3d 637 Fourth Circuit November 21, 2017 Nos. 16-2214, 16-2218
Brown, Deputy Elliott did not violate clearly established law. Ms. Brown challenges the grant of qualified immunity. B. During discovery, Ms.
Qualified immunity shields officials from civil liability so long as their conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Mullenix v.
The Supreme Court has emphasized “the importance of drawing inferences in favor of the nonmovant, even when ... a court decides only the clearly-established prong” of the qualified immunity analysis. Id.
-
165 F.3d 265 Fourth Circuit December 31, 1998 No. 97-1777
We agree with the district court that the officers are not entitled to qualified immunity because the constitutional right at issue was clearly established at the time of the events in question and was a right of which a reasonable
The second prong of the qualified immunity analysis inquires whether the right at issue was clearly established at the time the alleged violation took place.
First, the officers argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity because the doctrine of exigent circumstances was not clearly established in 1992 and, indeed, remains unclear to this day. Appellants’ Br. at 25.
Showing the top 500 cases. Narrow your search or add filters to see more.