-
865 F.3d 544 Seventh Circuit July 26, 2017 Nos. 16-3560 & 16-3644
On the merits, the court ruled that both defendants were not shielded by qualified immunity because it was clearly established in the Seventh Circuit that inmates have the right to be free from deliberate indifference to a known risk
Step 2: Clearly Established Law We do have jurisdiction to review the second qualified immunity step: whether Clark’s asserted rights were clearly established at the time of his suicide.
Finally, Walker argues that the clearly established prohibition on deliberate indifference to prisoners’ and jail inmates’ risk of suicide is too general to be enforceable for purposes of qualified immunity.
-
68 F.3d 203 Seventh Circuit December 15, 1995 No. 94-3441
Defendants argue that qualified immunity should protect them because the lack of a significant injury demonstrates that the officers did not violate a clearly established constitutional right.
of ‘clearly established’ law.”
Daley and McGinnis contend that they are sheltered by qualified immunity because, when they arrested Rambo, the law was not clearly established that their actions were under color of state law.
-
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.
-
805 F.3d 543 Fifth Circuit October 28, 2015 No. 15-30182
Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 , 96 S.Ct. 893 , 47 L.Ed.2d 18 (1976), and its progeny and that the pertinent law was clearly established at the time of the incident. Defendants appeal the denial of qualified immunity.
To defeat qualified immunity, the plaintiff must show that the official’s conduct was objectively unreasonable in light of a clearly established rule of law. See id. at 323 .
In summary, as we have explained, the alleged constitutional right was not clearly established, so the officers are entitled to qualified immunity.
-
177 F.3d 1245 Eleventh Circuit June 14, 1999 No. 98-8512
But in Edwards, this court reversed the denial of summary judgment to jail officials on qualified immunity grounds holding that the Edwards defendants’ actions did not constitute deliberate indifference under clearly established
To overcome the defendants’ qualified immunity, plaintiffs must establish that the defendants’ conduct violated a clearly established statutory or constitutional right of which 8 a reasonable person would have known.
If no such case law exists, then the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. Id. When considering whether the law is clearly established, the specific facts of the cases relied upon as precedent are important.
-
913 F.3d 1227 Tenth Circuit January 24, 2019 Nos. 17-2072 & 17-2079
Here, our analysis focuses on the clearly-established-law prong, and we conclude that Plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate that Director Dean violated their clearly-established rights; consequently, Director Dean prevails on his qualified-immunity
We agree with Director Dean that he did not violate clearly-established federal law and thus conclude that he is entitled to the defense of qualified immunity.
to the issue of whether Director Dean is entitled to qualified immunity under the circumstances giving rise to this § 1983 suit, we conclude that his actions did not violate clearly-established federal law.
-
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).
-
957 F.2d 339 Seventh Circuit June 8, 1992 No. 90-2319
from asserting the qualified immunity defense.
We first examine whether as a matter of law officers Gallion and Haloulos are entitled to qualified immunity because their conduct during the search of Apostol’s office violated clearly established rights.
Accordingly, if the undisputed facts of this case, so construed, indicate that the defendants’ conduct did not violate any clearly established legal standard, the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity as a matter of law.
-
156 F.3d 1131 Eleventh Circuit September 28, 1998 No. 97-3563
General Qualified Immunity Principles Qualified immunity shields a § 1983 defendant from liability for harms arising from her discretionary acts, so long as her acts do not violate any clearly established statutory or constitutional
However, it is axiomatic that a § 1983 defendant cannot be stripped of qualified immunity unless “ivhat [s]he is doing violates [a clearly established] right.”
Second, “[i]n this circuit, the law can be ‘clearly established’ for qualified immunity purposes only by decisions of the U.S.
-
919 F.3d 165 Second Circuit March 20, 2019 Nos. 17-3564-cv; August Term 2018
It follows, and we have repeatedly held, that a state statute does not serve as "clearly established law" for purposes of qualified immunity.
The Lack of Clearly Established Law For qualified immunity to apply, it is sufficient that no clearly established law has held that "an officer acting under similar circumstances" violated an employee's due process rights.
And we conclude that, since Schwaller has not violated Tooly's clearly established rights, he is entitled to qualified immunity.
-
852 F.3d 1035 Eleventh Circuit January 26, 2017 No. 15-14373
Although we conclude that Deaton’s conduct violated the Fourth Amendment, qualified immunity protects him from suit because his violation was not clearly established in law when he acted.
Qualified immunity also protects Branham because his subordinate’s constitutional violation was not clearly established. A. Deaton is Entitled to Qualified Immunity.
Branham is entitled to qualified immunity because Deaton’s conduct was not a clearly established violation of the Fourth Amendment.
-
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.
-
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
-
7 F.3d 1552 Eleventh Circuit November 9, 1993 No. 92-4661
Defendants are, at least, entitled to qualified immunity because no facts before us show defendants violated clearly established law. See Lindsey v.
Hurley is entitled to qualified immunity because Hurley’s acts, as established by the record before us, violated no clearly established law. C.
Sellers-Sampson is entitled to qualified immunity because it was not clearly established that the amount of force he used outside the restaurant was unlawful.
-
51 F.3d 1531 Tenth Circuit April 7, 1995 No. 94-2108
based on qualified immunity.
Defendant contends he was entitled to summary judgment based on qualified immunity because Plaintiff failed to show he violated clearly established law.
Further, a defendant is entitled to qualified immunity if the plaintiff fails to show that the law was clearly established. See, e.g., Pallottino v.
-
885 F.3d 811 Fifth Circuit March 20, 2018 No. 12-50217
But the extraterritorial application of these protections to Hernández was not clearly established at the time of Mesa's tortious conduct. Mesa is therefore entitled to qualified immunity. See Mullenix v.
. ----, 136 S.Ct. 305 , 308, 193 L.Ed.2d 255 (2015) ("The doctrine of qualified immunity shields officials from civil liability so long as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights."
Scherer , the Supreme Court held, "A plaintiff who seeks damages for violation of constitutional or statutory rights may overcome the defendant official's qualified immunity only by showing that those rights were clearly established
-
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.
-
864 F.3d 1071 Tenth Circuit July 25, 2017 No. 15-1454
Here the district court denied qualified immunity to the warden and director, reasoning that the underlying constitutional right had been clearly established.
Even with this assumption, the warden and director would enjoy qualified immunity because the underlying constitutional right had not been clearly established.
Perkins's ambiguity means that our circuit has not clearly established a right to outdoor exercise over an eleven-month period. As a result, the warden and director are entitled to qualified immunity. 5 IV.
-
147 F.3d 1337 Eleventh Circuit July 31, 1998 No. 97-9214
But still Plaintiff argues that the preexisting law was somehow so clearly established that Defendants should not be protected by qualified immunity.
established, and (3) where the qualified immunity determination does end the whole case — it remains appropriate, and sometimes preferable, to stop at the determination that the right, if any, was not clearly established. 15 “
Dicta is particularly unhelpful in qualified immunity cases where we seek to identify clearly established law.” Hamilton v.
-
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.
Showing the top 500 cases. Narrow your search or add filters to see more.