-
472 U.S. 511 Supreme Court June 19, 1985 No. 84-335Cited by 7,615 Concurrence · O'Connor
Our previous cases concerning the qualified immunity doctrine indicate that a defendant official whose conduct did not violate clearly established legal norms is entitled to avoid trial. Davis v. Scherer, 468 U.
I agree that the District Court’s denial of qualified immunity comes within the small class of interlocutory orders appealable under Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp., 337 U. S. 541 (1949).
Because I also agree that the District Court erred in holding that petitioner’s authorization of the wiretaps in 1970 violated legal rights that were clearly established at the time, I concur in the judgment of the Court.
-
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.
-
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).
-
179 F.3d 996 Sixth Circuit June 9, 1999 No. 98-1471
For the following reasons, we conclude that the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity because, prior to 1996, it was not clearly established that the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act applied to prisoners.
The Fourth Circuit held that prison officials were entitled to qualified immunity because, prior to 1994, it was not clearly established that the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act applied to prisons. See 57 F.3d at 1352 .
established prior to 1996 in order to preclude a finding of qualified immunity.
-
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.
-
933 F.2d 390 Sixth Circuit May 16, 1991 Nos. 90-5716, 90-5765
Analysis A public official is entitled to qualified immunity for conduct in performing discretionary functions so long as that conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable
When ruling on qualified immunity, the district court should indicate the clearly established right at issue and the factual basis for its conclusion that a genuine issue exists as to the commission of acts violating that right.
However, the district court failed to make any explicit findings on the issue of qualified immunity. The court apparently did not determine whether appellants’ conduct violated any of appellee’s clearly established rights.
-
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.
-
935 F.2d 780 Sixth Circuit August 27, 1991 No. 89-6008
Whether an official may prevail in his qualified immunity defense depends upon the “objective reasonableness of [his] conduct as measured by reference to clearly established law.”
Before the commencement of discovery, a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal if the plaintiff fails to state a claim of violation of clearly established law.
clearly established law.
-
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
-
45 F.3d 790 Fourth Circuit February 2, 1995 No. 94-1569
Only then did the court address the qualified immunity issue, holding that qualified immunity must apply because the legal rule adopted for the first time in that case could not have been clearly established at the time of the defendant
The term “clearly established” has an acquired meaning referencing qualified immunity, with its focus on law at the time of the challenged conduct.
may make it more difficult to find the law ‘clearly established’ when assessing claims of qualified immunity.”); Borucki v.
-
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.
-
577 U.S. 7 Supreme Court November 9, 2015 No. 14-1143
The doctrine of qualified immunity shields officials from civil liability so long as their conduct " 'does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.' " Pearson
In Brosseau , which also involved the shooting of a suspect fleeing by car, the Ninth Circuit denied qualified immunity on the ground that the officer had violated the clearly established rule, set forth in Tennessee v.
There, the lower court had denied qualified immunity based on the clearly established "right to be free from warrantless searches of one's home unless the searching officers have probable cause and there are exigent circumstances."
-
516 U.S. 299 Supreme Court February 21, 1996 No. 94-1244
On the merits of the appeal, the court rejected the argument that petitioner enjoyed qualified immunity because he had not violated any “clearly established right.”
After discovery, petitioner moved for .summary judgment on qualified-immunity grounds, contending that his actions had not violated any “clearly established” right of respondent regarding his employment at Pioneer or elsewhere.
state a claim of violation of clearly established law, a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal before the commencement of discovery.
-
858 F.2d 1171 Sixth Circuit October 4, 1988 Nos. 85-3836, 87-3040
The court stated that this decision added to the evidence that clearly established the protected right in this case. Until recently, the controlling Supreme Court case on qualified immunity, Wood v.
Whether an official may prevail in his qualified immunity defense depends upon the “objective reasonableness of [his] conduct as measured by reference to clearly established law.”
Telb, 831 F.2d 673 (6th Cir.1987), we held that if a defendant raises a qualified immunity defense, a plaintiff must plead that any constitutional violation alleged has been clearly established: [Wjhere as here plaintiff seeks
Showing the top 500 cases. Narrow your search or add filters to see more.