-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
55 F.3d 1123 Sixth Circuit May 31, 1995 No. 94-5284
The primary question in such qualified immunity cases is whether the plaintiff has pointed to facts stating that the defendants violated her “clearly established rights.” Anderson v.
A violation of a clearly established state law can only surmount qualified immunity if it embodies the federal right that is the basis of the § 1983 action. Davis v.
Thus, the defendants did not violate the plaintiff’s clearly established federal rights, and therefore they have qualified immunity from plaintiffs § 1983 claims.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
21 F.3d 289 Eighth Circuit April 12, 1994 No. 93-1143
We concluded that the officer’s right of free speech was not clearly established and that the defendants were entitled to qualified immunity. Id. at 917-18.
In reviewing the superintendent’s assertion of qualified immunity, we held, without citing Bartlett or Buzek , that the superintendent “was not entitled to qualified immunity. because the law was clearly established in 1988 that public
We then addressed the city council members’ assertion of qualified immunity and concluded that qualified immunity was not appropriate because Casey’s right of free speech was clearly established. Id. at 804.
-
826 F.2d 647 Seventh Circuit August 13, 1987 No. 86-2096
were not entitled to qualified immunity.
Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, government officials performing discretionary functions are shielded from liability for civil damages unless their conduct violated “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of
If the undisputed facts, so read, show that the defendant’s conduct, as a matter of law, violated no clearly established legal norms, then the district court must grant the defendant qualified immunity.
-
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
-
193 F.3d 1263 Eleventh Circuit October 28, 1999 No. 98-6829Cited by 423 Concurrence · Hoeveler
When qualified immunity is asserted as a defense, a court must first determine whether the violation of a constitutional right is asserted, then determine whether that right was clearly established (if not, then qualified immunity
“Deciding the constitutional question before addressing the qualified immunity question ... promotes clarity in the legal standards for official conduct.” Wilson v.
Layne, 526 U.S. 603 , 119 S.Ct. 1692 , 143 L.Ed.2d 818 (1999) (holding that the right violated was not clearly established at the time of the offense).
Showing the top 500 cases. Narrow your search or add filters to see more.