Case law

Atkinson v. Taylor

316 F.3d 257 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jan 21, 2003

Atkinson has fulfilled Saucier 's first prong for denying qualified immunity by alleging a violation of a clearly established constitutional right. … The majority misconstrues the Supreme Court's Eighth Amendment jurisprudence, and, a fortiori, wrongly deems its outcome "clearly established" for purposes of qualified immunity.

Losch v. Borough of Parkesburg

736 F.2d 903 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jun 14, 1984

Qualified immunity protects a defendant who failed to observe a right or a legal standard that was not clearly established when the defendant acted. Thus, the Court held in Procunier v. … On the other hand, as the Harlow Court concluded, “[i]f the law was clearly established, the immunity defense ordinarily should fail,” unless the defendant “claims extraordinary circumstances and can prove that he neither

Hicks v. Feeney

850 F.2d 152 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jun 22, 1988

Finally, the district court found that because Hicks’s rights were not “clearly established” at the time of the violation, Feeney was entitled to qualified immunity. Id. at 1515. … If it were clearly established that this confinement violated Hicks’s constitutional rights, then Feeney does not have qualified immunity. Id.

Fernando Saint-Jean v. Palisades Interstate Park

49 F.4th 830 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Sep 23, 2022

demonstrated a violation of a constitutional right – an arrest and prosecution without probable cause – that applied with obvious clarity to Saint-Jean’s particular circumstances, such that the constitutional violation was clearly-established … of qualified immunity at the motion-to-dismiss stage.

Wright v. Montgomery County

215 F.3d 367 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jun 9, 2000

Wright argues that the Appellants’ qualified immunity claims are not reviewable on interlocutory appeal because the District Court’s December 18, 1998, Memorandum and Order “sets forth the clearly established right which … Holding as we do that Wright has alleged the violation of a clearly established right, we must also hold that the Appellants are not entitled to qualified immunity at this stage of the proceedings. IV.

United Artists Theatre Circuit, Inc. v. Township of Warrington

316 F.3d 392 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jan 14, 2003

Qualified immunity applies so long as the officials’ “conduct [did] not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Id. … clearly established at the time of the violation.

Good v. Dauphin County Social Services for Children & Youth

891 F.2d 1087 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Dec 15, 1989

a violation of a clearly established legal right. … action is a violation) violates a clearly established right.

Consonery v. Pelzer

558 F. App'x 271 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Mar 7, 2014

Qualified immunity shields officials from suit if their conduct “d[id] not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. … This standard was clearly established in 2009, when Consonery was incarcerated at WCCF.

Nicole Schneyder v. Gina Smith

653 F.3d 313 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jul 29, 2011

Ill “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 … There are two related but distinct inquiries in a qualified immunity case.

Reitz v. County of Bucks

125 F.3d 139 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Sep 8, 1997

To analyze a defense of qualified immunity, we must ascertain whether the law was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation, and,we must also decide whether under the existing law an officer reasonably could … In this case, the district court determined that the prosecutors did not act in violation of any clearly established statutory or constitutional law and thus dismissed the claim on the grounds of qualified immunity- Although

Manasco v. Rogers

337 F. App'x 145 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jul 29, 2009

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 … In assessing whether qualified immunity is warranted, the court must determine whether “the plaintiff has alleged a deprivation of a constitutional right,” and whether the right at issue was “clearly established” at the time

United Artists Theatre Circuit, Inc. v. The Township Of Warrington, Pa

316 F.3d 392 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jan 14, 2003

Qualified immunity applies so long as the officials' "conduct [did] not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known." Id. … In determining whether qualified immunity applies, we ask: (1) whether the plaintiff has alleged the deprivation of an actual constitutional right, and if so, (2) whether the right was clearly established at the time of the

George Karnes v. Thomas Skrutski, in His Individual Capacity Edward Kowalski, in His Individual Capacity

62 F.3d 485 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Aug 3, 1995

We hold the law was clearly established for purposes of qualified immunity. 2. … Where the law is clearly established and proof of the elements of the plaintiff's prima facie case would defeat the immunity, no qualified immunity defense is available. Appellant's Br. at 36.

Roger Vanderklok v. United States

868 F.3d 189 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Aug 22, 2017

The qualified immunity dispute centers on whether a First Amendment right to be free from retaliation by a TSA employee was clearly established at the time of the incident in question. … City of Passaic, 365 F.3d 181, 191 (3d Cir. 2004) (“[W]e lack jurisdiction to consider whether the district court correctly identified the set of facts … sufficient to establish a violation of a clearly established constitutional

Jeremy Graber v. Michael Boresky

59 F.4th 603 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Feb 10, 2023

In cases implicating qualified immunity, similarly, whether “a particular complaint sufficiently alleges a clearly established violation of law cannot be decided in isolation from the facts pleaded.” … And qualified immunity analysis looks to precedent for law enshrining “clearly established” rights. Kisela v. Hughes, 138 S. Ct. 1148, 1152 (2018) (per curiam).

Jarovits v. Monroe County Children & Youth Services

345 F. App'x 784 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Sep 21, 2009

The Bayer Court held that “under the ‘clearly established’ prong of the Saucier test, defendants should be afforded qualified immunity with respect to [the plaintiffs’ procedural due process] claim.” … qualified immunity.

Burella v. City of Philadelphia

501 F.3d 134 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Sep 13, 2007

“Qualified immunity shields state officials from suit when their conduct ‘does- not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’ ” Yarris, 465 F.3d at 140 … If the' court concludes that the defendant’s *140 conduct violated a clearly established right, it must deny the defendant the protection afforded by qualified immunity. 9 Id. IV.

Estate of Arrington Ex Rel. Arrington v. Michael

738 F.3d 599 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Dec 24, 2013

He claims both qualified and statutory immunity. … Since his conduct falls squarely within the immunity established by the Child Safety Lock Act of 2005, 18 U.S.C. § 922(z)(3), we need not address his claim for qualified immunity and will reverse the decision of the District

Mcgreevy v. Stroup

413 F.3d 359 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jun 28, 2005

Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity only if the constitutional or statutory violation alleged is not clearly established. 16 1. … established' for the purposes of the Harlow qualified immunity standard."

McGreevy v. Stroup

413 F.3d 359 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jun 28, 2005

Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity only if the constitutional or statutory violation alleged is not clearly established. 1. … established’ for the purposes of the Harlow qualified immunity standard.”