-
555 U.S. 223 Supreme Court January 21, 2009 No. 07-751
Qualified immunity is applicable unless the official’s conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right. Anderson, supra, at 640 .
IV Turning to the conduct of the officers here, we hold that petitioners are entitled to qualified immunity because the entry did not violate clearly established law.
immunity because the law was not clearly established at the relevant time.
-
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.
-
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
-
533 U.S. 194 Supreme Court June 18, 2001 No. 99-1977Cited by 9,697 Overruled
The District Court held that the law governing excessive force claims was clearly established at the time of the arrest, and that “[i]n the Fourth Amendment context, the qualified immunity inquiry is the same as the inquiry made on
The Court of Appeals affirmed, noting at the outset its two-part analysis for qualified immunity questions. First, the Court of Appeals considers “whether the law governing the official’s Conduct was clearly established.”
S. 386 (1989), sets forth the objective reasonableness test for evaluating excessive force claims, a principle the Court of Appeals concluded was clearly established for qualified immunity purposes.
-
561 F.3d 1288 Eleventh Circuit March 11, 2009 No. 08-12348
Thus, if the violated right was not clearly established, qualified immunity still applies. Id. at 201, 121 S.Ct. 2151 .
The Supreme Court recognized that discussion of a constitutional violation may become unnecessary for qualified immunity purposes when the right was not clearly established. Id.
A right may be clearly established for qualified immunity purposes in one of three ways: (1) case law with indistin *1292 guishable facts clearly establishing the constitutional right, Long v.
-
496 F.3d 139 Second Circuit August 1, 2007 Nos. 04-5711-cv(L), 04-5943-cv(XAP)Cited by 414 Concurrence · Sotomayor
The portion of the majority’s qualified immunity discussion that I find objectionable reads as follows: “If the right at issue was not clearly established by then existing precedent, then qualified immunity shields the defendant.
Once we determine whether the right at issue was clearly established for the particular context that the officer faced, the qualified immunity inquiry is complete. Wilson v.
In addition, by adding two steps to the qualified immunity analysis beyond whether the particular right was clearly established, the majority’s discussion of "arguable probable cause” further splinters our qualified immunity lest.
-
428 F.3d 223 Sixth Circuit November 1, 2005 No. 04-3524Cited by 63 Concurring in Part, Dissenting in Part · Zatkoff
Because I find that the alleged Constitutional violation was not “clearly established,” I would grant qualified immunity to the individual defendants. Accordingly, I respectfully dissent as to this issue.
A number of circuit courts of appeal have explained that constitutional rights which require a particularized balancing test, such as the Pickering balancing test in this case, will rarely be “clearly established” for qualified immunity
may make it more difficult to find the law ‘clearly established’ when assessing claims of qualified immunity.”); Borucki v.
-
455 F.3d 186 Third Circuit July 25, 2006 No. 05-1930
We are asked to determine whether, for the purposes of qualified immunity, the conduct alleged by Williams constituted a violation of his “clearly established” rights.
‘clearly established’ law.”
Long, 72 F.3d 70, 72-74 (8th Cir.1995) (denying qualified immunity because Muslim inmates had a clearly established right not to be forced to handle pork); Kenner v.
-
305 F.3d 314 Fifth Circuit September 5, 2002 No. 00-60256
established law, and that he was not entitled to qualified immunity.
To resolve this apparent conflict between Melear and Shipp, we look to the Supreme Court’s qualified immunity cases addressing what constitutes clearly established law.
established for the purposes of qualified immunity analysis, see 234 F.3d at 915, is overruled.
-
255 F.3d 543 Eighth Circuit July 6, 2001 No. 00-2222
Duffy moved for summary judgment based, in part, on qualified immunity.
Duffy’s conduct was not objectively reasonable under clearly established law. Dr. Duffy contends on appeal that he is entitled to qualified immunity.
Qualified immunity shields 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 have known,” Harlow
-
475 F.3d 926 Eighth Circuit February 2, 2007 No. 06-1700
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.
In considering the immediate appeal from the denial of qualified immunity, “ ‘the appealable issue is a purely legal one, whether the facts alleged ... support a claim of violation of clearly established law.’ ” Johnson v.
-
429 F.3d 586 Sixth Circuit November 18, 2005 No. 18-5936
The district court held that the EMTs were not entitled to qualified immunity because, accepting plaintiff’s allegations, they violated decedent’s clearly established constitutional right to receive competent medical care while in
Decedent’s clearly established constitutional rights were not violated because the decedent was never in custody and the EMTs did nothing to increase the risk of harm to decedent. The EMTs are entitled to qualified immunity.
But once the EMTs raise qualified immunity, Jackson must plead the violation of a clearly established constitutional right. See Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 526 , 105 S.Ct. 2806 , 86 L.Ed.2d 411 (1985).
-
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.
-
579 F.3d 908 Eighth Circuit September 3, 2009 No. 08-3148
The court denied the Board qualified immunity with respect to Rush’s First and Fourteenth Amendment claims, finding that Rush’s rights under those provisions were clearly established.
The court concluded that the Board was not entitled to qualified immunity because Rush’s right to a name-clearing hearing was clearly established.
Rush’s right to a post-termination name-clearing hearing was clearly established. The district court did not err in denying the Board members’ summary judgment motion on qualified immunity grounds. III.
-
257 F.3d 309 Third Circuit July 19, 2001 No. 99-3019Cited by 315 Concurring in Part, Dissenting in Part · Nygaard
*331 It is now axiomatic that the doctrine of qualified immunity bars government officials from liability for damages unless they disobeyed “clearly established] statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would
Debates over defendants’ qualified immunity typically turn on this “clearly established right” clause.
were clearly established ... ’ Davis , in short, concerned not the authorities a court may consider in determining qualified immunity, but this entirely discrete question: Is qualified immunity defeated where an appellee violates
-
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.
-
407 F.3d 1081 Tenth Circuit April 19, 2005 No. 04-6122
Bednar”) claims that he is entitled to qualified immunity because he did not violate clearly established law in terminating Plaintiff-Appellee Sara McFall (“Ms. McFall”). Mr.
Bednar is entitled to qualified immunity, therefore, unless he violated a clearly established constitutional right.
McFall’s termination violated clearly established law Mr. Bednar violated clearly established law, and thus is not entitled.to qualified immunity, if he terminated Ms. McFall for exercising her free speech rights.
-
536 U.S. 730 Supreme Court June 27, 2002 No. 01-309Cited by 4,616 Dissent · Thomas
A The Court correctly states that respondents are entitled to qualified immunity unless their conduct violated “ ‘clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’”
C In concluding that respondents are not entitled to qualified immunity, the Court is understandably unwilling to hold that our Eighth Amendment jurisprudence clearly established in 1995 that attaching petitioner to a restraining
In conducting qualified immunity analysis, however, courts do not merely ask whether, taking the plaintiff’s allegations as true, the plaintiff’s clearly established rights were violated.
-
331 F.3d 93 Second Circuit May 30, 2003 No. 02-0169
Defendants argue, however, that they are entitled to qualified immunity under the second prong of the test, because Hanrahan's right to due process protection was not clearly established at the time of the alleged violations in 1997
It would defy logic to analyze qualified immunity, as defendants urge, in terms of unpredictable subsequent events, and courts have repeatedly declined to frame the clearly established inquiry through the "20/20 vision of hindsight
McBride, 323 F.3d 191, 195 (2d Cir.2003) (per curiam). 6 We note that the extent to which district court decisions may be taken into account in evaluating whether a right is clearly established for qualified immunity purposes
-
534 U.S. 1120 Supreme Court January 29, 2002 No. 01-309
. § 1983 are entitled to qualified immunity unless they have violated statutory or constitutional rights ‘clearly established’ by a case presenting facts ‘materially similar’ to those in the plaintiff’s case. 2.
Whether under the circumstances that must be taken as true at the summary judgment stage of this ease, tying a prisoner to a ‘hitching post’ violates ‘clearly established’ constitutional rights for purposes of qualified immunity under
Showing the top 500 cases. Narrow your search or add filters to see more.