Case law

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.

Montanez v. Secretary Pennsylvania Department of Corrections

773 F.3d 472 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Aug 15, 2014

“Qualified immunity shields government officials from suit even if their actions were unconstitutional as long as those' officials’ actions ‘d[id] not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … Therefore, qualified immunity applies. The fact that the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity on Hale’s damages claim does not prevent this case from moving forward on Hale’s claim for injunctive relief.

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, Albert Cooper, and David Porter. Keith Forsyth, Plaintiff-Respondent, Hon. Raymond J. Broderick, United States District Judge, Nominal v. Richard G. Kleindienst, John N. Mitchell, Defendant-Petitioner

729 F.2d 267 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Apr 3, 1984

Determining that the "clearly established" test has not been met, I would find that defendant meets the requirements for qualified immunity and is entitled to judgment. Accordingly, I dissent. 53 * In Forsyth v. … Since "clearly foreshadowed" is a lesser test, Weinberg is additional support for the proposition that the law was not "clearly established."

Mario Henry v. City of Erie

728 F.3d 275 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Aug 23, 2013

Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, “government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … the right was clearly established.’”

Sutton v. Rasheed

323 F.3d 236 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Mar 19, 2003

We hold that there was a constitutional violation, but because we conclude that defendants are protected by qualified immunity, we will affirm. 2 I. … Defendants also contend that they are protected by qualified immunity from the damages claim.

Gulley v. Elizabeth City Police Department

340 F. App'x 108 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jul 27, 2009

The Court reasoned that, if Gulley’s account was correct, the Officers were not entitled to qualified immunity as it was clearly established that the “beating an unarmed suspect, multiple times on the face and head while … a violation of a clearly established constitutional right.”

Melo v. Hafer

13 F.3d 736 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Feb 15, 1994

immunity, absolute prosecutorial immunity, and qualified official immunity. … Creighton, 483 U.S. 635 , 107 S.Ct. 3034 , 97 L.Ed.2d 523 (1987), where Anderson, an FBI agent, claimed qualified official immunity from damage liability on an alleged constitutional tort: The principles of qualified immunity

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

Gulley v. Elizabeth City Police Department

340 F. App'x 108 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jul 27, 2009

The Court reasoned that, if Gulley’s account was correct, the Officers were not entitled to qualified immunity as it was clearly established that the “beating an unarmed suspect, multiple times on the face and head while … a violation of a clearly established constitutional right.”

Chinchello v. Fenton

805 F.2d 126 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Nov 14, 1986

established legal norms. 21 We acknowledge that on these facts the distinction between an "I didn't do it" defense and a qualified immunity defense based on the absence of a clearly established legal duty is not as clear … Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. at 818, 102 S.Ct. at 2738, instructed that qualified immunity is unavailable if the defendant's conduct violated "clearly established ... statutory rights" and, based on Davis v.

Springer v. Henry

435 F.3d 268 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jan 18, 2006

Springer moved for partial summary judgment on the ground that his speech was protected by the First Amendment, and argued that Henry was not entitled to qualified immunity because his First Amendment right was clearly established … Springer’s right to speak on various problems confronting hospital administration was clearly established.

Polyns Bieregu v. Janet Reno L. Yearby G. Berman, All Employees of Mail Room Staffs

59 F.3d 1445 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Sep 11, 1995

Even where- a plaintiff can establish a constitutional violation, under the doctrine of qualified immunity government officials will not be liable if “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … In contrast, if “the law is not established clearly when an official acts, he is entitled to qualified immunity because he ‘could not reasonably be expected to anticipate subsequent legal developments.’”

Ali v. Howard

353 F. App'x 667 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Nov 16, 2009

Qualified immunity shields these defendants in their individual capacities from damages suits so long as their conduct does “not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … We agree, based on the discussion above, that the state defendants are entitled to qualified immunity because them conduct did not rise to constitutional violations. See Pearson v.

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.

Levin v. Upper Makefield Township

90 F. App'x 653 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Mar 8, 2004

Qualified immunity applies so long as the government 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, a court asks: (1) whether the plaintiff has alleged the deprivation of a constitutional right, and if so, (2) whether the right was clearly established at the time of the

Ridgewood Board of Education v. N.E., as Guardian Ad Litem for M.E., an Infant Mary E., Individually and as Guardian Ad Litem for M.E., an Infant, Defendants/third-Party v. Frederick Stokley, Superintendent John Campion, Director of Special Programs Charles Abate, Principal William Ward, Principal Lorraine Zak, Psychologist Kathleen McNally Social Worker Caroline Janover, Ldt-C George Neville, Principal Henry Hogue, Psychologist June Ann Dibb, Dr., Psychiatrist Joan Christian, Ldt-C Susan Lynaugh, Psychologist, Third-Party N.E., as Guardian Ad Litem for M.E., an Infant Mary E., Individually and as Guardian Ad Litem for M.E., an Infant

172 F.3d 238 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Mar 30, 1999

Qualified Immunity 62 A municipal official sued in his individual capacity enjoys qualified immunity if his conduct "does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would … s clearly established federal rights". Because we addressed qualified immunity in IDEA claims in W.B. v.

Andrew Carman v. Jeremy Carroll

749 F.3d 192 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · May 15, 2014

Under the qualified immunity doctrine, government 12 officials are shielded from civil liability for conduct that does not violate clearly established constitutional or statutory rights … Qualified immunity is applicable unless [his] conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right.” See id. at 232 (internal citations and quotation marks omitted).

Springer v. Henry

435 F.3d 268 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jan 18, 2006

Springer moved for partial summary judgment on the ground that his speech was protected by the First Amendment, and argued that Henry was not entitled to qualified immunity because his First Amendment right was clearly established … whether the defendant's conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right." 8 Demonstrating that it did not view our Interlocutory Order as a vacation of its qualified immunity decision at summary judgment, the

Kenneth Mann v. Palmerton Area School District

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Sep 21, 2017

In addressing the clearly established prong of the qualified immunity inquiry, we must define the right allegedly violated at the appropriate level of specificity. Sharp v. … Even if support is lacking there, a “robust consensus of cases of persuasive authority in the Court[s] of Appeals could clearly establish a right for purposes of qualified immunity.”

Kornegay v. Cottingham

120 F.3d 392 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jul 23, 1997

The district court granted defendants' motion for summary judgment based upon their assertion of qualified immunity. … Qualified immunity turns on the reasonableness of the officers' belief that their conduct was legal not its legality per se.