Case law

Hicks v. Feeney

770 F.2d 375 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Aug 26, 1985

Fauver, 544 F.Supp. 584, 607 (D.N.J.1982) (although legal principles clearly established, qualified immunity granted because specific question not yet resolved). … Thus, Feeney's entitlement to qualified immunity hinges on whether it was clearly established that Hicks's confinement after the initial 72-hour period violated his constitutional rights.

Reilly v. City of Atlantic City

532 F.3d 216 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jul 1, 2008

First, Appellants argue that even if Reilly’s speech may be protected by the First Amendment, that fact was not clearly established until the Supreme Court’s decision in Garcetti , and therefore they are entitled to qualified … , rather, whether or not certain given facts showed a violation of “clearly established” law.’ ” Id.

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

Hubbard v. Taylor

538 F.3d 229 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Aug 5, 2008

On remand, the District Court found that Defendants were entitled to qualified immunity under either prong of the familiar two-step analysis established by the Supreme Court in Saucier v. … “[A] right is clearly established for purposes of qualified immunity when its contours are ‘sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that right.’ ” Williams v.

Reitz v. County Of Bucks

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

Id. 24 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 … 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. 25 Although

The People Of Three Mile Island v. Nuclear Regulatory Commissioners

747 F.2d 139 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Oct 29, 1984

Fitzgerald: The Lower Courts Implement the New Standard for Qualified Immunity Under Section 1983, 132 U.Pa.L.Rev. 901 (1984). 23 The "clearly established" requirement poses at least two ambiguities. … established so as to defeat qualified immunity. 17 40 As stated in Part II, supra, we do not insist on an exact factual match when a general legal proposition is clearly established.

Sherelle Thomas v. City of Harrisburg

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Dec 6, 2023

Clearly Established Right However, before the Officers can be denied qualified immunity from being sued for deliberate indifference to a serious medical need, the constitutional right violated must be clearly established … Rather, qualified immunity does most of its work through the second prong – whether the violation of a federal right has been clearly established. See id.

Bowers v. National Collegiate Athletic Ass'n

475 F.3d 524 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Feb 1, 2007

Thus, taking all reasonable inferences in Bowers’ favor, we find genuine issues of material fact remain as to whether Bowers was a “qualified individual with a disability” at the relevant time period for establishing liability … This second factor clearly weighs in favor of immunity.

Jeffrey E. Johnson Bruce Howard Shore, in No. 97-3581 v. Martin F. Horn Raymond J. Sobina, in No. 97-3582

150 F.3d 276 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Oct 16, 1998

to qualified immunity on those claims is moot. … are entitled to qualified immunity.

Bartholomew v. PA

221 F.3d 425 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Aug 7, 2000

We exercise plenary review of a District Court’s denial of summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity. See Abbott v. … We note in this connection that, for purposes of the qualified immunity analysis, the “clearly established constitutional right” should be set forth with specificity. See Wilson v.

The State of Texas v. Jesse Thompson, Defendant-Third Party v. Chris Hanger and Benny Fisher, Third Party-Defendants-Appellants

70 F.3d 390 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Dec 8, 1995

DISCUSSION We review a denial of summary judgment based upon qualified immunity in a § 1983 action de novo under well-established standards. See Reese v. Anderson, 926 F.2d 494, 498 (5th Cir.1991). … The first step in assessing a claim of qualified immunity is to ascertain whether the plaintiff has alleged the violation of a clearly established constitutional right. Siegert v.

Torisky v. Schweiker

446 F.3d 438 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Apr 28, 2006

They will be entitled to such immunity if "`their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.'" Wilson v. … "If no constitutional right would have been violated were the allegations established, there is no necessity for further inquiries concerning qualified immunity.

Gallo v. City of Philadelphia

161 F.3d 217 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Dec 7, 1998

Under the qualified immunity doctrine, a government official will be liable only if the plaintiff can show that the official violated clearly established law of which a reasonable person should have known. See Harlow v. … Donatucci, 81 F.3d 1283, 1291-92 (3d Cir.1996) (assuming that decisions of this court can clearly establish a right for qualified immunity purposes); Medina v.

Schrob v. Catterson

967 F.2d 929 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jun 29, 1992

the same official acknowledges that at least some of the plaintiffs allegations do make out violations of clearly established law.” … Fitzgerald, a defendant entitled to qualified immunity is immune unless the challenged actions violated clearly established law. This is a question of law.

Wilson v. Schillinger

761 F.2d 921 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · May 1, 1985

The Supreme Court has extended the application of the Harlow “clearly established rights” standard for qualified immunity to cases, such as this one, in which defendants are sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1982) for alleged … Thus, to avoid the recovery-preclusive effects of qualified immunity, plaintiff must have proven that defendants had reason to know they were violating plaintiffs clearly established equal protection rights by enforcing Directive

Hynson ex rel. Hynson v. City of Chester

864 F.2d 1026 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Dec 23, 1988

This is the essence of the constitutional right which the plaintiffs must show was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation in order to negate the police officers’ qualified immunity. B. … Hynson’s clearly established right to equal protection.

Prisco v. United States

851 F.2d 93 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Aug 24, 1988

established law. … In exploring whether a right is clearly established, we must find "some but not precise correspondence" with applicable precedents. People of Three Mile Island v.

Sherelle Thomas v. City of Harrisburg

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Dec 6, 2023

Clearly Established Right However, before the Officers can be denied qualified immunity from being sued for deliberate indifference to a serious medical need, the constitutional right violated must be clearly established … Rather, qualified immunity does most of its work through the second prong – whether the violation of a federal right has been clearly established. See id.

Fraternal Order of Police, Lodge 1 v. City of Camden

842 F.3d 231 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Nov 17, 2016

The doctrine of qualified immunity “shields government officials from civil damages liability unless the official violated a statutory or constitutional right that was clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct … .”74 In assessing qualified immunity claims, we conduct a two-part inquiry.

Couden v. Duffy

446 F.3d 483 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · May 1, 2006

“On the other hand, the plaintiff need not show that there is a prior decision that is factually identical to the case at hand in order to establish that a right was clearly established.” Id. … Moreover, the constitutional right in question was clearly established under the qualified immunity test. The factors relevant to the excessive force analysis are well-recognized, as described above.