Case law

Hopkins v. Vaughn

363 F. App'x 931 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jan 29, 2010

Discussion “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 … Two inquiries govern whether an official is entitled to qualified immunity: (1) whether the facts alleged establish a violation of a constitutional right, and (2) whether the constitutional right at issue was clearly established

Craig Henry v. Bill Perry

866 F.2d 657 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Apr 13, 1989

Since the decision involves the question of qualified immunity, it is immediately appealable. Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511 , 105 S.Ct. 2806 , 86 L.Ed.2d 411 (1985). … The question in determining the existence of qualified immunity is whether a reasonable person could have believed the defendant’s action to be lawful in light of clearly established law and the information he possessed.

Gloria Munger, Personal Representative of the Estate of Lance K. Munger, Deceased and Donald M. Munger and Gloria Munger, Individually v. City of Glasgow Police Department, Michael Sukut, Vernon Buerkle, Valley County Sheriff's Department, Brien Gault and Tim Nixdorf, Michael Sukut, Vernon Buerkle, Valley County Sheriff's Department, Brien Gault and Tim Nixdorf, Third-Party v. William Fastje and John Doe No. 1 and John Doe No. 2, D/B/A Stockman Bar, and Patricia Mulligan, John Doe No. 3 and John Doe No. 4, D/B/A Stan's Saloon, Third-Party

227 F.3d 1082 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Sep 6, 2000

To evaluate a qualified immunity claim, we first ask whether the law governing the official's conduct was clearly established; if so, we ask whether under that law, and under the circumstances at issue, a reasonable officer … This court declined to grant the officers qualified immunity. Id. at 711. 17 In Kneipp v.

Argueta v. United States Immigration & Customs Enforcement

643 F.3d 60 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jun 14, 2011

It is also well established that government officials are immune from liability for damages where their conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have … In fact, the qualified immunity doctrine exists to encourage vigorous and unflinching enforcement of the law. See, e.g., id. at 1953-54.

Miller v. Clinton

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Oct 1, 2008

The court concluded that Judge Saxton had not established that he was entitled to qualified immunity because the record did not support his claim that he had not violated Miller’s clearly established constitutional rights … Discussion The doctrine of qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions Afrom liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory

Doe v. Groody

361 F.3d 232 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Mar 19, 2004

But the immunity is forfeited if an officer's conduct violates "clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known." Wilson v. … The District Court held that it did, and the officers argue that the District Court applied the "clearly established" test at too high a level of generality. 49 We agree that in determining whether a right is "clearly established

Joshua Otero v. Christian Kane

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Dec 5, 2025

IN ANY EVENT, QUALIFIED IMMUNITY SHIELDS THE OFFICERS Even if the officers had violated the Fourteenth Amend- ment, qualified immunity would shield them from liability. … Because the magistrate judge did not define the right specifically enough, he did not see that no case has clearly established the relevant right.

Light v. Haws

472 F.3d 74 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jan 3, 2007

The fate of an official with qualified immunity depends upon the circumstances and motivations of his actions, as established by the evidence . . . . … "; see Schrob, 948 F.2d at 1407 n. 5 ("[A]n official with qualified immunity must establish that the[ ] conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have

Rosa Perez v. Borough of Berwick

507 F. App'x 186 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Dec 12, 2012

The Perez family also contends that genuine issues of material fact exist as to whether the individual officers acted reasonably in light of clearly established law, such that they should receive qualified immunity from … In assessing a government official‟s entitlement to qualified immunity from suit, we determine whether a plaintiff‟s constitutional right was violated, and whether that right was clearly established at the time of the alleged

Reese v. Nelson

598 F.2d 822 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · May 2, 1979

After reviewing the trial record, we conclude that the evidence indisputably establishes a qualified immunity for the defendants which required the entry of directed verdicts for them. … As Navarette makes clear, the immunity defense should not be rejected if at the time that the act was committed there was no clearly established constitutional right and there was no malicious intention to deprive the plaintiff

Miller v. City of Philadelphia

174 F.3d 368 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Apr 26, 1999

The proper approach, however, is to ascertain whether a constitutional violation has been alleged before determining if qualified immunity is available. See Siegert v. … immunity.

Walker v. Horn

286 F.3d 705 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Apr 16, 2002

Lasky who both argue that they are immune from suit under the doctrine of qualified immunity. … Generally, the relevant issue of law is whether the right the defendant is alleged to have violated was “clearly established” at the time the defendant acted or failed to act. See Behrens v.

Mariana v. Fisher

338 F.3d 189 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jul 30, 2003

That immunity is so potent that it protects petitioning notwithstanding an improper purpose or motive. Id. The doctrine was first established in E.R.R. Presidents Conference v. … To qualify as state action under the Midcal test, the challenged restraint must, first, be one that is “ ‘clearly articulated and affirmatively expressed as state policy,’ ” and, second, the resulting antitrust violation

Kobe Pinkney v. Meadville Pennsylvania

95 F.4th 743 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Mar 12, 2024

Because the District Court made no factual findings, it denied qualified immunity based on the law. So we have appellate ju- risdiction to hear this legal challenge to a denial of qualified immunity. Dennis v. … Officer Frum argues that qualified immunity shields him because he had probable cause for the arrest.

Keystone Redevelopment Partners, LLC v. Decker

631 F.3d 89 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jan 7, 2011

I would instead decide this case on the ground of qualified immunity and hold that the Board members did not deprive Keystone of a well-established constitutional right. … I believe that we should have decided this case on the ground of qualified immunity and held that the Board members did not deprive Keystone of a clearly-established constitutional right.

Velius v. Township of Hamilton

466 F. App'x 133 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Mar 9, 2012

his vehicle and non-injurious tight handcuffing were not clearly established when they acted. … The District Court properly denied the Officers qualified immunity on this basis. Velius v.

W.D.D., Inc. v. Thornbury Township, Chester County and Copeland, John G., Jr.

839 F.2d 151 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Feb 8, 1988

If WDD had no clearly established right, then Copeland is immune from suit and is entitled to summary judgment. … Because the acts of which WDD complains do not show the violation of any clearly established right, Copeland is immune from suit.

Torisky Ex Rel. 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.

Forsyth v. Kleindienst

599 F.2d 1203 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · May 22, 1979

If he can establish that the law was unsettled, and that he acted without malice, he will prevail on his claim of qualified immunity. See Wood v. … 'They do not claim a common law immunity 'from suit. Indeed, they concede the well established rule that federal law enforcement officers are entitled only to qualified, or good faith, immunity.

Kareem Millhouse v. Susan Heath

866 F.3d 152 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Aug 4, 2017

to § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), Doe also qualifies as a strike. … Furthermore, this Court’s own ruling in Rail clearly weighs in favor of McLean.