-
60 F.3d 664 Ninth Circuit July 28, 1995 No. 94-15422
clearly established constitutional right.”
The Right Allegedly Violated Was Clearly Established.
Appellants argue that they should have been granted qualified immunity because the second, “clearly established,” prong of the test has not been met.
-
250 F.3d 729 Ninth Circuit May 11, 2001 No. 99-55623
Qualified immunity analysis begins with an allegation of constitutional injury and a determination of whether the right allegedly infringed was clearly established at the time of the events in question. Siegert v.
After reviewing the legal standards for qualified immunity, the court held: 9 [T]he law is not clearly established that a policy of indemnifying punitive damage awards violates constitutional rights . . . .
Though much of the analysis under qualified immunity and the merits of a §§ 1983 claim overlaps, the issue of whether a right is "clearly established " is relevant only to qualified immunity. 11 Regardless, the explicit holding
-
813 F.2d 1509 Ninth Circuit April 6, 1987 No. 85-2706
The court found that appellants failed to address the pertinent issue for a claim of qualified immunity: whether the law they were accused of violating was clearly established.
Nowhere do appellants claim that the law, they are accused of violating was not clearly established.
immunity claim meets Cohen "separate from the merits" test because it involves only "legal determination that a given proposition of law was not clearly established"); id.
-
27 F.3d 1357 Ninth Circuit May 31, 1994 No. 19-15936
“[W]hen qualified immunity is at stake, [however], a court must first determine whether the law has been clearly established.” Romero, 931 F.2d at 628 .
how unclear it may be that the particular action is a violation) violates a clearly established right,” such a general allegation is not enough to overcome a defendant’s qualified immunity.
Objective Reasonableness If the law governing an official’s conduct is clearly established, qualified immunity is available if a reasonable official could have believed the conduct at issue was lawful under that clearly established
-
92 F.3d 934 Ninth Circuit August 12, 1996 No. 94-16929
immunity, typically, the issue whether the federal right allegedly infringed was ‘clearly established’.”
“Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity only ‘insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’ ” Allen v.
Accordingly, the court held that whether the Eighth Amendment applies to malfunctioning kitchen equipment is questionable, and therefore certainly not “clearly established” for purposes of qualified immunity. Id.
-
465 F.3d 1041 Ninth Circuit October 6, 2006 No. 04-35608
The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials who perform discretionary functions from civil liability, as long as “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a
Whether the Constitutional Right was Clearly Established . We proceed to the second qualified immunity inquiry: whether that right was clearly established.
A prison official is not entitled to qualified immunity if the law governing his conduct was clearly established such that a reasonable prison official would know that his conduct was unlawful.
-
14 F.4th 1021 Ninth Circuit September 28, 2021 No. 20-35598
DePaul’s asserted interest was thus not clearly established. 1 Miller is entitled to qualified immunity, and we reverse the district court’s denial of summary judgment as to him.
MILLER DISCUSSION Miller is entitled to qualified immunity unless he violated a clearly established statutory or constitutional right.
CONCLUSION Miller is entitled to qualified immunity if his conduct did not violate DePaul’s clearly established statutory or constitutional rights.
-
115 F.3d 707 Ninth Circuit June 6, 1997 No. 95-56254
Because the officers have moved for qualified immunity on a motion to dismiss, we decide only whether defendants’ alleged conduct violated clearly established constitutional rights. Todd v.
In order to be entitled to qualified immunity, the officers must show that their discretionary conduct did not violate any clearly established rights of which a reasonable person should have known. Harlow v.
Conclusion We affirm the district court’s denial of qualified immunity to the officers. Taking all material facts alleged as true, they violated clearly established rights of which a reasonable person should have known.
-
290 F.3d 965 Ninth Circuit May 17, 2002 No. 01-35222
The officials defended on grounds of qualified immunity, arguing that until the Ninth Circuit upheld the district court decision in Crofton , the law with respect to the “no gift publication” policy was not “clearly established
Qualified immunity, however, serves to shield 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 would
The law would be clearly established and defendants’ qualified immunity defense would fail.
-
827 F.2d 1368 Ninth Circuit September 16, 1987 No. 85-4111
Vincent and Mackey are not entitled to qualified immunity protection because their conduct exceeded the scope of their authority and because they violated Merritt’s clearly established constitutional rights.
entitled to qualified immunity.
When the law is clearly established, as here, the qualified immunity defense fails “since a reasonably competent public official should know the law governing his conduct.” Harlow, 457 U.S. at 818-19 , 102 S.Ct. at 2738 .
-
147 F.3d 839 Ninth Circuit June 2, 1998 No. 96-36129
established" to preclude qualified immunity under Harlow and its progeny.
established" to defeat Senn's assertion of qualified immunity.
when assessing claims of qualified immunity."
-
975 F.2d 1388 Ninth Circuit December 19, 1991 No. 91-35146
In opposition to the officers’ motion for summary judgment on qualified immunity, Elder proffered three out-of-state cases to show that the law was clearly established that a warrant was required to make a “constructive entry” into
On the issue of qualified immunity, Elder argued in the district court that the law was clearly established that an Idaho warrant was required to make a “constructive *1391 entry” over the threshold. He proffered Payton v.
Imposing the burden of proving that the right was clearly established means that a § 1983 plaintiff, confronted with a challenge on grounds of qualified immunity, must show that the particular facts of his case support a claim of clearly
-
712 F.3d 446 Ninth Circuit April 3, 2013 Nos. 09-16460, 09-17635
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.
It was clearly established before their encounter that such conduct violated Plaintiffs’ substantive due process rights. Therefore, Mark-graf is not entitled to qualified immunity.
-
96 F.3d 1298 Ninth Circuit September 27, 1996 No. 95-35056
Koch moved for qualified immunity, contending that his. conduct did not violate clearly established constitutional rights.
III Government officials enjoy qualified immunity from civil damages unless their conduct violates “clearly established constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v.
Determining whether a public official is entitled to qualified immunity “requires a two-part inquiry: (1) Was the law governing the state official’s conduct clearly established?
-
985 F.3d 657 Ninth Circuit January 13, 2021 No. 18-55289
We are not aware of a single case in which we have examined the defendant’s mental state in assessing the clearly established law prong of qualified immunity.
Because we reversed the district court’s denial of qualified immunity based on the objective elements of clearly established law, we expressly declined to consider, for qualified immunity purposes, how the subjective elements of the
As the court explained, “we assess qualified immunity based on the law that was ‘clearly established at the time an action occurred,’” and at the time of the shooting in Kedra, “it was not yet clearly established whether deliberate
-
974 F.3d 1012 Ninth Circuit September 9, 2020 No. 18-55450
But, critically, the 2011 case did not reach the clearly established prong of the qualified immunity analysis and said nothing about whether the right was clearly established prior to 2011. See Glenn, 673 F.3d at 870 .
Therefore, because the same clearly established right at issue in Capp is also at issue here, the cases that supported denial of qualified immunity in Capp also compel us to deny qualified immunity in the instant case. 4 Defendants
clearly established prong.”
-
194 F.3d 962 Ninth Circuit October 22, 1999 No. 98-16298
On the issue of qualified immunity, the district court held that the law governing the use of force in an arrest was clearly established.
A defendant will always be entitled to qualified immunity when the law governing his or her conduct was not clearly established -the first prong of the qualified immunity defense. 30 As a fallback position, Saucier argues that
immunity discussion in Anderson focuses on the proper formulation of the "clearly established" prong.
-
83 F.4th 743 Ninth Circuit September 29, 2023 No. 22-16236
Nor was it clearly established that a retaliatory investigation per se violates the First Amendment. Defendants were therefore entitled to qualified immunity on the First Amendment claims based on Mr.
Because Plaintiffs fail to show that Defendants’ conduct violated clearly established law, Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity on the First Amendment claims.
“[I]n the absence of binding precedent, we look to whatever decisional law is available to ascertain whether the law is clearly established for qualified immunity purposes . . . .” Id.
-
90 F.3d 330 Ninth Circuit July 18, 1996 No. 94-16741
The doctors moved for summary judgment on the ground of qualified immunity. The district court denied the motion. The doctors appeal.
ANALYSIS The doctors contend that they are entitled to qualified immunity because there was no clearly established law requiring *332 them to provide a kidney transplant to a prisoner on dialysis.
Johnson dictates that we must refrain from considering this question, a departure from our prior approach to qualified immunity appeals from a denial of summary judgment. See, e.g., Burgess v.
-
616 F.3d 963 Ninth Circuit August 2, 2010 No. 08-17523
State officials are entitled to qualified immunity from suits for damages “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v.
In order to determine the viability of a qualified immunity claim, we determine whether the defendants violated a constitutional right and whether the constitutional right was clearly established at the time of the defendants’ actions
As we have previously noted, the doctrine of qualified immunity protects state actors when the constitutional right at issue was not “clearly established” at the time of the actions at issue.
Showing the top 500 cases. Narrow your search or add filters to see more.