-
845 F.3d 580 Fifth Circuit November 9, 2016 No. 15-40836Cited by 167 Unpublished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.
-
408 F. App'x 846 Fifth Circuit January 19, 2011 No. 09-11044Cited by 7 Unpublished
The qualified immunity defense has two prongs: whether an official’s conduct violated a constitutional right of the plaintiff; and whether the right was clearly established at the time of the violation. Manis v.
If the defendant’s actions violated a clearly established constitutional right, the court then asks whether qualified immunity is still appropriate because the defendant’s actions were “objectively reasonable” in light of “law which
To be clearly established for purposes of qualified immunity, the contours of the right must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that right. Brown v.
-
390 F. App'x 22 Second Circuit August 13, 2010 No. 09-4532-CVCited by 4 Unpublished
A government official is entitled to qualified immunity for his actions unless his conduct violates a clearly established constitutional or statutory right of which a reasonable person would have known. Pearson v.
The Second Circuit has held that a right is “clearly established” for qualified immunity purposes if “(1) the law is defined with reasonable clarity, (2) the Supreme Court *24 or the- Second Circuit has recognized the right, and
Therefore, defendants-appellees are entitled to qualified immunity for those actions.
-
374 F. App'x 114 Second Circuit March 30, 2010 No. 09-1266-cvCited by 9 Unpublished
“Qualified immunity is applicable unless the official’s conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right.” Id. In Pearson , the Supreme Court abandoned its previous holding in Saucier v.
Finally, Seri’s third theory also fails under the “clearly established constitutional right” prong of the qualified immunity analysis.
Because Seri cannot establish that Boch-icchio’s alleged conduct violated any “clearly established constitutional right,” Bochicchio is entitled to qualified immunity.
-
707 F.3d 1161 Tenth Circuit January 29, 2013 No. 12-2041Cited by 41 Unpublished
But once an officer asserts qualified immunity, the plaintiff bears the “heavy two-part burden” of showing both that (1) “the defendant violated ...
[a] constitutional ... right[],” and (2) the “infringed right at issue was clearly established at the time of the allegedly unlawful activity such that a reasonable law enforcement officer would have known that his or her challenged
His response brief failed even to include the terms “qualified immunity” or “clearly established.”
-
452 F. App'x 623 Sixth Circuit December 15, 2011 No. 10-6176Cited by 12 Unpublished
Finally, Markesbery correctly points out that the district court did not explicitly address the “clearly established” prong of the qualified immunity test. The court stated: “Given the totality of -8- No. 10-6176, Haley v.
interpret its holding that “issues of fact . . . prevent a grant of qualified immunity” to mean that the right was clearly established but the factual dispute still prevented a finding of qualified immunity
Leis, 556 F.3d 484, 500 (6th Cir. 2009), does not mean that the “clearly established” prong of the qualified immunity test has been -11- No. 10-6176, Haley v. Elsmere met in the context of a particular state statute.
-
328 F. App'x 204 Fourth Circuit May 14, 2009 No. 08-1105Cited by 9 Unpublished
upon were clearly established.
If we determine that a constitutional right has been violated, only then do we assess whether the right was “clearly established” under existing law (the “clearly established prong” of the qualified immunity analysis). Id.
The “clearly established” prong of the qualified immunity analysis turns on “the objective legal reasonableness of the action, assessed in light of the legal rules that were clearly established at the time it was taken.”
-
603 F. App'x 653 Tenth Circuit January 16, 2015 No. 14-1104Cited by 5 Unpublished
Lopez’s assertion of qualified immunity on the equal protection claim. She is entitled to qualified immunity in the absence of a clearly established constitutional right to accommodation for disabled employees.
Lopez (Qualified Immunity) Under the precedents in the Supreme Court and our court, there is no clearly established constitutional protection against employment discrimination on the basis of a disability.
that the right was not clearly established).
-
186 F. App'x 860 Eleventh Circuit June 21, 2006 No. 05-12231Cited by 4 Unpublished
Second, after confirming our jurisdiction as to the retaliation claims, we find the district court erred in denying qualified immunity because there is no clearly established right under the Equal Protection Clause to be free from
had been clearly established.
right was clearly established and (2) whether the alleged acts violated that law” — the two parts of the “ ‘core qualified immunity’ analysis.”
-
550 F. App'x 181 Fifth Circuit December 19, 2013 No. 13-30075Cited by 6 Unpublished
retaliation was objectively unreasonable in the light of clearly-established law.
the light of that then clearly-established law?
[conduct] in light of clearly established law at the time of the conduct.”
-
543 F. App'x 507 Sixth Circuit October 21, 2013 No. 18-1504Cited by 1 Unpublished
“Unless the plaintiffs allegations state a claim of violation of clearly established law, a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal before the commencement of discovery.”
Two steps comprise our qualified immunity analysis here. First, Minick must plead a plausible violation of her husband’s rights. Second, she must show that right was clearly established at the time of the incident.
Because a reasonable official in Mason’s shoes would not know that her response violated Minick’s clearly established rights, qualified immunity shields Mason from liability.
-
631 F. App'x 545 Tenth Circuit November 12, 2015 No. 15-6079Cited by 15 Unpublished
They filed this interlocutory appeal based on qualified immunity.
II “The doctrine of qualified immunity protects 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
If such a general statement of the constitutional violation that must be clearly established were sufficient, qualified immunity would almost never be granted.
-
341 F. App'x 523 Eleventh Circuit August 10, 2009 No. 08-15425Cited by 25 Unpublished
Rather, we grant the officer qualified immunity unless the court determines that the right violated was “clearly established” at the time. Saucier, 533 U.S. at 201, 121 S.Ct. 2151 .
The Supreme Court has declared that the test of “clearly established” law cannot apply at a high level of generality; instead, to deny qualified immunity, “the right the official is alleged to have violated must have been ‘clearly
Talladega City Bd. of Educ., 115 F.3d 821 , 827 n. 4 (11th Cir.1997) (“In this circuit, the law can be ‘clearly established’ for qualified immunity purposes only by decisions of the U.S.
-
652 F. App'x 497 Ninth Circuit June 6, 2016 No. 14-35147Not cited Unpublished
We reverse the district court’s denial of qualified immunity and remand for further proceedings, The purported right to be free from a retaliatory arrest that is otherwise supported by probable cause was not clearly established in
established for purposes of qualified immunity.
Under the clearly established prong of qualified immunity, “[t]he dispositive question is-‘whether the violative nature of particular conduct is clearly established.’ ” Mullenix v.
-
Tenth Circuit July 31, 2018 No. 17-1445Not cited Unpublished
Qualified immunity and Heck are analytically distinct doctrines: qualified immunity asks whether a defendant violated a constitutional or statutory right that was clearly established, Thomas, 765 F.3d at 1194 ; Heck evaluates
In McAdam, the Sixth Circuit affirmed the denial of qualified immunity, concluding that three officers violated the plaintiff’s clearly established rights. 517 F. App’x at 438 .
Defendants Are Not Entitled to Qualified Immunity The remaining issue is whether the first amended complaint plausibly states a violation of Mr. Sayed’s clearly established rights.
-
409 F. App'x 285 Eleventh Circuit January 19, 2011 No. 09-16472Cited by 2 Unpublished
“Qualified immunity protects municipal officers from liability in § 1983 actions as long ‘as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’ ”
Even if Plaintiff can show that Eggleston’s actions amounted to a constitutional violation, “if the violated right was not clearly established, qualified immunity still applies.” Id.
Because the right that Plaintiff alleged that Eggleston violated is not clearly established, Eggleston is entitled to qualified immunity on the claim of excessive force. AFFIRMED. 1 .
-
76 F.3d 378 Sixth Circuit January 23, 1996 No. 95-1261Cited by 9 Unpublished
Wrist surgery has eliminated some, but not all, of the substantial long-term effects. 4 Dockter argues that he is entitled to summary judgment on grounds of qualified immunity because there is no clearly established right against
We have held that qualified immunity is lost when constitutional "rights were so clearly established when the acts were committed that any officer in the defendant's position, measured objectively, would have clearly understood that
We remind the district court, however, that, although the facts as alleged by the plaintiff do not now result in qualified immunity for either defendant, as the evidence develops, qualified immunity will exist if the plaintiff cannot
-
552 F. App'x 812 Tenth Circuit January 15, 2014 No. 13-1094Cited by 5 Unpublished
Plaintiffs have failed to meet their burden to demonstrate that any relevant rights were “clearly established” for purposes of the qualified immunity analysis.
immunity because the rights were not clearly established.
clearly established.
-
117 F.3d 1425 Ninth Circuit July 7, 1997 No. 96-15842Cited by 2 Unpublished
established right.
Following our remand, the officers moved for summary judgment, arguing that they were entitled to qualified immunity. The district court entered summary judgment in their favor.
To be clearly established for qualified immunity purposes, the contours of the asserted right must be "sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that right." Camarillo v.
-
685 F. App'x 631 Ninth Circuit March 30, 2017 No. 14-35682Not cited Unpublished
We reverse the district court’s decision denying qualified immunity and hold that Krueger is entitled to qualified immunity because the law was not clearly established at the time of the violation. 1.
The United States Supreme Court recently reiterated “the longstanding principle that ‘clearly established law* should not be defined ‘at a high level of generality.’ ” White v.
Accordingly, we conclude that summary judgment based on qualified immunity was warranted because the law was not clearly established at the time of the alleged conduct. See White, 137 S.Ct. at 552 . 2.
Showing the top 500 cases. Narrow your search or add filters to see more.