Case law

Nicole Schneyder v. Gina Smith

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jul 29, 2011

III “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.

Nicole Schneyder v. Gina Smith

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jul 29, 2011

III “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.

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. 27 The doctrine was first established in E.R.R. Presidents Conference v. … Midcal Aluminum, Inc., 445 U.S. 97 , 100 S.Ct. 937 , 63 L.Ed.2d 233 (1980). 263 F.3d at 259 . 49 To qualify as state action under the Midcal test, the challenged restraint must, first, be one that is "`clearly articulated

Sourbeer v. Robinson

791 F.2d 1094 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · May 28, 1986

Harlow has made crystal clear that the correct standard is “clearly established” — not “fairly established” as stated by the district court. … That violation, however, was not analyzed to determine if it was in contravention of clearly established law. I am persuaded that test has not been met and that the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity.

A.W. v. The Jersey City Public Schools New Jersey Department of Education Jeffrey v. Osowski, Former Director, Division of Special Education Barbara Gantwerk, Director, Office of Special Education Programs Silvia Elias, Former. Executive Director of Pupil Personnel Services Priscilla Petrosky, Associate Superintendent for Special Education John Iwanowski Mary Hepburn Joan Edmiston Denise Braak Mary MacEachern Edward Fauerbach, Learning Disabilities Teacher-Consultants Norma Chrisomalis Gwendolyn Jackson Linda Colon Ronne Bassman William Ronzitti Roxanne Johnson, Supervisors of Special Education Sharnette Green, Teacher Melinda Zangrillo, Coordinator of Compliance Jane Doe and John Doe (1)-(5), All in Their Official and Individual Capacities. New Jersey Department of Education Jeffrey v. Osowski Melinda Zangrillo Barbara Gantwerk

486 F.3d 791 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · May 24, 2007

Finally, the Court denied defendants qualified immunity because A.W. adduced sufficient proof that defendants had violated A.W.'s clearly established rights under the IDEA and the Rehabilitation Act. … ruling on qualified immunity, Kopec v.

Raymond A. Berg, Jr. v. County of Allegheny Allegheny County Adult Probation Services Debbie Benton Richard R. Gardner Glenn Allen Wolfgang Ginny Demko

219 F.3d 261 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jul 17, 2000

Unless historical facts are in dispute, qualified immunity is a matter for the court. See id. at 828. … Briggs, 475 U.S. 335, 345 (1986)). 30 A government official is entitled to qualified immunity if his "conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have

Donald Delade v. John Cargan

972 F.3d 207 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Aug 25, 2020

But it declined to grant summary judgment or qualified immunity to Cargan on DeLade’s Fourteenth Amendment claim. Cargan timely appealed. … a constitutional right that is clearly established.

Burella v. Philadelphia

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Sep 13, 2007

If the court concludes that the defendant’s conduct violated a clearly established right, it must deny the defendant the protection afforded by qualified immunity.9 Id. IV. … immunity because the right was not clearly established at the time of the alleged violation.

No. 98-5283

212 F.3d 781 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · May 19, 2000

According to the doctrine of qualified immunity, law enforcement officers acting within their professional capacity are generally immune from trial "insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … Therefore, we do not have to reach the second prong of the qualified immunity investigation, that is, whether the right was clearly established. 36 In sum, we conclude that the District Court correctly concluded that Russo

Wrench Transportation Systems, Inc. v. Bradley

340 F. App'x 812 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jul 28, 2009

Because we find that Malone's claim does not establish the deprivation of a Constitutional right, we need not determine whether Kennedy and McMahon are entitled to qualified immunity. See Pearson v. … . -, 129 S.Ct. 808, 815-18 , 172 L.Ed.2d 565 (2009) (upholding the two prongs of qualified immunity analysis — that a plaintiff must show a “violation of a constitutional right” and that the right was "clearly established

Dominick Mancini v. Sherwin Lester and David Lucas

630 F.2d 990 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Sep 18, 1980

Speaking for the Court, Judge Hunter evaluated this claim against “the boundaries to [the] immunity” established by the Supreme Court. … Defendants’ arguments are not sufficient to establish absolute immunity on the basis of the existing record.

Keith Forsyth v. Richard G. Kleindienst, John N. Mitchell

700 F.2d 104 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jan 20, 1983

Forsyth I established that a pretrial denial of summary judgment on the basis of absolute immunity is appealable. That precedent is binding on this panel, as is Nixon v. Fitzgerald. … McClellan, 697 F.2d 309, 312-316 (D.C.Cir.1982) (denial of qualified immunity is appealable).

John Doe v. County Of Centre

242 F.3d 437 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Mar 5, 2001

The District Court also held that the individual CYS officials were entitled to qualified immunity because any right the Does had was not clearly established, and, further, that County government entities were immune from … The District Court agreed, holding that qualified immunity applied because the Does failed to show that the individual officials' conduct violated rights clearly established at the time the conduct occurred.

Keith Forsyth v. Richard G. Kleindienst, Individually and as Attorney General of the United States, L. Patrick Gray, 3rd, Individually and as Acting Director, Federal Bureau of Investigation, John N. Mitchell, Individually and as Former Attorney General of the United States, John Doe and Richard Roe, Albert Cooper and David Porter. Appeal of John N. Mitchell, E. Davis Porter, and Albert Cooper. Katherine W. Burkhart, Judith Chomsky, Eva Gold, Dina Portnoy, Candy Putter, Joshua (Josh) Markel v. William Saxbe, Individually and as Attorney General of the United States, Clarence Kelley, Director, Federal Bureau of Investigation, John N. Mitchell, Individually and as Former Attorney General of the United States, John Doe, and Richard Roe, Appeal of John N. Mitchell, Clarence Kelley, and William Saxbe

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.

Gause v. Diguglielmo

339 F. App'x 132 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jul 15, 2009

The other question is whether, at the time of the incident, “the [constitutional] right was clearly established,” as measured by a reasonable-officer standard. … We exercise plenary re *134 view over determinations of qualified immunity, Yar ris v.

ESTATE OF

318 F.3d 497 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jan 29, 2003

unlawful as they advanced a qualified immunity defense in the district court and do so on this appeal. … Thus, the right at issue in this case was clearly established at the time the incident occurred. A plaintiff, however, must show more to survive a motion for summary judgment predicated on a qualified immunity defense.

Briggs v. Moore

251 F. App'x 77 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Oct 16, 2007

The analysis involves a two-step inquiry: whether the officials’ acts violated a constitutional or statutory right, and if they did, whether that right was clearly established at the time of the violation. See Yarris v. … Without a violation of a clearly established right, we need inquire no further and the three appellees are entitled to qualified immunity. See Wright v. City of Phila., 409 F.3d 595 , 600 (3d Cir.2005).

Estate Robert Smith v. Marasco

318 F.3d 497 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jan 29, 2003

Thus, the right at issue in this case was clearly established at the time the incident occurred. A plaintiff, however, must show more to survive a motion for summary judgment predicated on a qualified immunity defense. … it appropriate to remand the qualified immunity issue to allow the district court to make the necessary factual determinations with respect to qualified immunity in the first instance.

S.G. v. Sayreville Bd Ed

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jun 19, 2003

The District Court further concluded as a “fall back” that Baumann is entitled to qualified immunity because she did not violate A.G.’s clearly established constitutional rights. App. at 275. … In any event, defendants are entitled to qualified immunity because there was no clearly  11 established law to the contrary.

Estate Robert Smith v. Marasco

430 F.3d 140 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Nov 30, 2005

Therefore, it is appropriate for us to rely on that decision in our analysis of whether the officers are entitled to qualified immunity, as the contours of the right at issue here— as set forth in Sharrar — were “clearly … More specifically, the second question requires us to ask whether the right the defendant stands accused of violating was “clearly established” at the time of the incident in question.