Case law

James J. Giuffre v. Nicholas Bissell Richard Thornburg Robert Smith Russ Leffert Sam Debella Richard Meyers County of Somerset

31 F.3d 1241 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Aug 4, 1994

It also ruled that none of the individual officials was entitled to qualified immunity because Giuffre had raised a genuine issue of material fact as to whether any clearly established laws had been violated by the officials … The “clearly established” standard of Harlow was delineated by the Supreme Court in Anderson v.

Joan Gruenke, Individually and as Parent and Natural Guardian of Leah Gruenke, a Minor v. Michael Seip

225 F.3d 290 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Aug 21, 2000

When the defendant violates a clearly established right about which a reasonable person would have known, he is not entitled to qualified immunity. See, e.g., Parkhurst v. … to qualified immunity.

Brian Davis v. George Wigen

76 F.4th 246 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Aug 4, 2023

Qualified Immunity The Federal Defendants argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity as to Plaintiffs’ RFRA claim because the law was not clearly established when Moshannon Valley denied Davis’s marriage request … Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982) (holding that qualified immunity protects government officials performing discretionary functions “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional

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.

Lindsey v. Storey

936 F.2d 554 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jul 23, 1991

Qualified immunity shields law enforcement officers performing discretionary functions from suit for all violations except those of clearly established law. Harlow v. … But, again, Storey is entitled to qualified immunity unless he clearly lacked the reasonable suspicion necessary to justify the search.

S.G., as Guardian Ad Litem of A.G. A Minor and Individually v. Sayreville Board of Education Georgia B. Baumann William L. Bauer

333 F.3d 417 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jun 19, 2003

In any event, defendants are entitled to qualified immunity because there was no clearly established law to the contrary. … speech, procedural due process or equal protection, 3 and because there is no clearly established law to the contrary, we will affirm the District Court’s grant of qualified immunity. 4 IV.

Burns v. County of Cambria

971 F.2d 1015 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jul 28, 1992

Finally, in considering the qualified immunity defense of the two Roberts defendants, the court held that they were not entitled to qualified immunity as a matter of law. Id. II. Appellate Jurisdiction A. … Clearly Established Standard Roberts argues, however, that it was not clearly established at the time of these dismissals that deputy sheriffs, as distinguished from other public officials, were indeed protected under the

Misael Cordero v. Gregory Kelley

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Mar 19, 2026

The analysis of a qualified immunity claim is guided by a two-part test: (1) “whether the facts … show the violation of a legal right,” and (2) “whether that right was clearly established.” Id. at 227. … And a “state statute cannot ‘clearly establish’ the federal right for qualified immunity purposes.” Id.

Kenneth Miller v. Michael Wenerowicz

648 F. App'x 161 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · May 2, 2016

Id. at 89.2 Even if a prison official’s restriction on the right to marry is unconstitutional under the Turner test, however, the official is immune from suit unless the right at issue was “clearly established.” … Even if a “robust consensus” of persuasive authority could clearly establish a right, Taylor v. Barkes, 135 S.

William Willson v. Thomas Yerke

604 F. App'x 149 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Mar 11, 2015

immunity from § 1983 claims for damages unless the facts alleged by the plaintiff show the violation of a constitutional right, and the right at issue was clearly established at the time of the alleged misconduct. 5 Here … qualified immunity on this basis as well.

Diane Zion v. Samuel Nassan

556 F. App'x 103 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jan 30, 2014

Officials benefit from qualified immunity unless their conduct violates clearly established law. Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 131 S. Ct. 2074, 2080 (2011). … We must therefore determine whether it was clearly established that if the facts alleged by the plaintiffs are true, the officers’ actions were unconstitutional.

Capone v. Marinelli

868 F.2d 102 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Feb 23, 1989

Because we find that the Appellants reasonably relied upon a bulletin establishing the existence of a warrant for arrest, they are entitled to qualified immunity as a matter of law. … violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”

John Doe v. Joan Delie

257 F.3d 309 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jul 24, 2001

Debates over defendants' qualified immunity typically turn on this "clearly established right" clause. … Davis, in short, concerned not the authorities a court may consider in determining qualified immunity, but this entirely discrete question: Is qualified immunity defeated where an appellee violates any clearly established

Beneficial Consumer Discount Company v. David R. Poltonowicz John Poltonowicz the Internal Revenue Service of the United States of America

47 F.3d 91 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Feb 9, 1995

of the well-established injunction against recognizing a waiver of federal sovereign immunity not evidenced in the statutory text. … Accordingly, a showing of a violation of federal law will not alone suffice to qualify a claim under the FTCA's waiver. Nuclear Transp. & Storage, Inc. v.

Spicer v. Hilton

618 F.2d 232 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Feb 28, 1980

However, it is well established that courts have a duty to avoid passing upon a constitutional question if the case may be disposed of on some other ground. Hagans v. … It is clearly established that the state’s immunity can be waived by the state, see, e. g., Petty v. Tennessee-Missouri Bridge Comm’n., 359 U.S. 275, 276 , 79 S.Ct. 785 , 3 L.Ed.2d 804 (1959); Gunter v.

Spicer v. Hilton

618 F.2d 232 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Feb 28, 1980

However, it is well established that courts have a duty to avoid passing upon a constitutional question if the case may be disposed of on some other ground. Hagans v. … It is clearly established that the state's immunity can be waived by the state, see, e. g., Petty v. Tennessee-Missouri Bridge Comm'n., 359 U.S. 275, 276 , 79 S.Ct. 785 , 3 L.Ed.2d 804 (1959); Gunter v.

Kulwicki, III v. Dawson

969 F.2d 1454 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jul 2, 1992

He is immune if he acted reasonably with respect to Kulwicki's constitutional rights, or if he did not violate clearly established law. … communication, however, we find that Loutzenhiser is entitled to qualified immunity because Kulwicki fails to allege a violation of clearly established federal law.

Maureen Mirabella v. Susan Villard

853 F.3d 641 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Apr 4, 2017

The rights allegedly violated, however, were not clearly established for the purpose of qualified immunity. … Under the second prong of qualified immunity, however, we conclude that the right was not clearly established.

Walter v. Pike County, Pa.

544 F.3d 182 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Sep 18, 2008

violated clearly established law.” … at issue — in the case of qualified immunity, whether that set of facts is “sufficient to establish a violation of a clearly established constitutional right.”

Amie Marie Beers-Capitol Aliya Tate v. Barry Whetzel, an Individual Shirley Robinson, in Her Official Capacity Robert Liggett, in His Individual and Official Capacity Youth Development Center at New Castle Nora Burley, in Her Individual and Official Capacity Nick Pihiou, in His Individual and Official Capacity John Doe, in His/her Individual and Official Capacity Charles Lee Earnhart, in His Individual and Official Capacity Joseph Flecher, in His Individual and Official Capacity (d.c. Civil No. 97-Cv-00292). Aliya Tate v. Barry Whetzel, in His Individual Capacity Shirley Robinson, in Her Individual and Official Capacity Robert Liggett, in His Individual and Official Capacity Youth Development Center at New Castle John Doe, in His/her Individual and Official Capacity, Nora Burley, in Her Individual and Official Capacity Nick Pihiou, in His Individual and Official Capacity (d.c. Civil No. 97-Cv-00313)

256 F.3d 120 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jun 11, 2001

claim to qualified immunity. … That is, Burley is entitled to qualified immunity only if she can show that a reasonable person in her position at the relevant time could have believed, in light of clearly established law, that her conduct comported with