-
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.
-
586 U.S. 38 Supreme Court January 7, 2019 No. 17-1660
The question in this qualified immunity case is whether two police officers violated clearly established law when they forcibly apprehended a man at the scene of a reported domestic violence incident.
The Ninth Circuit's entire relevant analysis of the qualified immunity question consisted of the following: "The right to be free of excessive force was clearly established at the time of the events in question.
Assuming without deciding that a court of appeals decision may constitute clearly established law for purposes of qualified immunity, see City and County of San Francisco v.
-
575 U.S. 822 Supreme Court June 1, 2015 No. 14-939
The majority then turned to the two-step *2044 qualified immunity inquiry, asking "first, whether the plaintiff suffered a deprivation of a constitutional or statutory right; and second, if so, whether that right was 'clearly established
"Qualified immunity shields government officials from civil damages liability unless the official violated a statutory or constitutional right that was clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct." Reichle v.
Because, at the very least, petitioners were not contravening clearly established law, they are entitled to qualified immunity. The judgment of the Third Circuit is reversed. It is so ordered.
-
841 F.3d 895 Tenth Circuit November 15, 2016 No. 15-2161
His response failed to mention the terms “qualified immunity” or “clearly established,” and the district court granted summary judgment. Id. We affirmed.
“As in Smith, Plaintiffs’ response d[id] not even mention the terms ‘qualified immunity’ or ‘clearly established.’ ” Id. at 84.
As in Smith, we can hardly say the district court erred in concluding Plaintiffs failed to show the clearly-established-law element of qualified immunity.
-
598 F.3d 753 Eleventh Circuit March 2, 2010 No. 13-14590
They argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity because the Protesters did not satisfy the heightened pleading standard for § 1983 actions, and alternatively, because their conduct did not violate clearly established law under
, and (2) that they were entitled to qualified immunity on the Fourth Amendment claims because, although they violated the Protesters’ Fourth Amendment rights by “herding” the Protesters, the violation was not clearly established.
If the violations were clearly established, then Timoney, Fernandez, Cannon, and Burden are not entitled to qualified immunity. IV.
-
972 F.3d 1007 Eighth Circuit August 28, 2020 No. 19-1557
The jail employees argue they are entitled to summary judgment based on qualified immunity because the right at issue was not clearly established.
A grant of qualified immunity is inappropriate, absent an obvious violation, if the right was not clearly established.
The right in question, even if properly defined, was not clearly established. As such, a grant of qualified immunity was appropriate.
-
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.
-
799 F.3d 600 Sixth Circuit August 24, 2015 No. 14-2235
Clearly Established Although the district court agreed that Baynes established the first prong of the qualified immunity analysis, it ultimately found that Baynes’ claim could not survive summary judgment because it failed the “clearly
This right was ‘clearly established’ for qualified immunity purposes at the time of Amanda’s seizure on October 30, 2002.”)
The cases in this Circuit place it beyond peradventure that such a right exists; thus, the law is sufficiently clear for the purpose of the clearly established prong of the qualified immunity analysis.
-
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.
-
886 F.3d 1132 Eleventh Circuit April 2, 2018 No. 17-13526
The relevant question, then, is whether Beatty's seizure of Crocker's iPhone violated a "clearly established" right. If it did, Beatty is not entitled to qualified immunity.
Even in "novel factual situations," we must deny qualified immunity when clearly established case law sends the "same message" to reasonable officers.
We further determine that these rights were clearly established at the time of the seizure such that Beatty is not entitled to qualified immunity.
-
580 U.S. 73 Supreme Court January 9, 2017 No. 16-67
All three officers moved for summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds.
Qualified immunity attaches when an official's conduct " 'does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.' " Mullenix v.
The Court has found this necessary both because qualified immunity is important to " 'society as a whole,' " ibid., and because as " 'an immunity from suit,' " qualified immunity " 'is effectively lost if a case is erroneously permitted
-
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.
-
822 F.3d 174 Fifth Circuit May 3, 2016 No. 15-20080Cited by 117 Concurrence · Costa
Carroll County, 587 F.3d 230 (5th Cir.2009), provides even stronger support for qualified immunity.
On this ground of qualified immunity, I would affirm the judgment. 2 .
Taylor I.S.D., 15 F.3d 443, 454 (5th Cir.1994) (en banc) (explaining that for supervisory liability claims the qualified immunity "clearly established” standard applies to the underlying violation as well as the duty to provide better
-
845 F.3d 580 Fifth Circuit November 9, 2016 No. 15-40836Cited by 167 Unpublished
Ceballos 2 case law had clearly established various principles of First Amendment retaliation law. 3 Importantly, the panel in Cutler was itself deciding a qualified immunity question. 4 Specifically, the Cutler panel asked what
or to show that the right was clearly established at the time Anderson spoke.
Our discussion of that rule had no bearing on deciding Valdez’s qualified-immunity claim.
-
800 F.3d 1231 Tenth Circuit September 8, 2015 No. 14-5022
Accordingly, the Sheriff reasons that this dearth of clearly established law means that the district court erred in (tacitly) denying him qualified immunity.
Cox cannot perforce make the requisite showing, under the clearly-established-law component of the well-settled qualified-immunity standard.
Cox has failed to satisfy her burden on the clearly-established-law prong of the qualified-immunity standard.
-
659 F.3d 359 Fifth Circuit September 27, 2011 No. 09-40373Cited by 605 Concurrence · Garza
GARZA, Circuit Judge, specially concurring: I completely agree with the first paragraph of Chief Judge Jones’s special concurrence, which concludes that the principals are entitled to qualified immunity because clearly established
-
722 F.3d 895 Seventh Circuit June 14, 2013 No. 12-3881
Because Findlay has not carried his burden of showing the violation of a clearly established right, Lendermon is entitled to qualified immunity. I. Background A.
Finding a constitutional violation that was clearly established at the time of the conduct, the court denied Lendermon’s motion for summary judgment raising the qualified immunity defense. Lendermon appealed. *899 II.
Apr. 2, 2013) (non-precedential) (noting plaintiffs burden to show clearly established right and finding that burden unsatisfied where defendant had not responded to qualified immunity defense in briefing).
-
571 U.S. 3 Supreme Court November 4, 2013 No. 12-1217
immunity because no clearly established law put him on notice that his conduct was unconstitutional.
Other courts have concluded that police officers are at least entitled to qualified immunity in these circumstances because the constitutional violation is not clearly established. E.g., Greiner v.
qualified immunity precisely because the law regarding warrantless entry in hot pursuit of a fleeing misdemeanant is not clearly established.
Showing the top 500 cases. Narrow your search or add filters to see more.