Case law

Charles Mack v. John Yost

63 F.4th 211 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Mar 21, 2023

immunity on the grounds that they did not violate clearly established rights. … The Supreme Court has repeatedly admonished courts not to define rights too broadly when determining whether law was “clearly established” for purposes of qualified immunity.

Mica Spady v. Bethlehem Area School District

800 F.3d 633 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Sep 1, 2015

“Whether an asserted federal right was clearly established at a particular time, so that a public official who allegedly violated the right has no qualified immunity from suit, presents a question of law[.]” Elder v. … We also take this opportunity to clarify Curley, which the District Court cited in declining to reach the “clearly established” prong of the qualified immunity analysis.

People of Three Mile Island v. Nuclear Regulatory Commissioners

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

immunity unless they have violated a clearly established statutory or constitutional right. … established so as to defeat qualified immunity. 17 As stated in Part II, supra, we do not insist- on an exact factual match when a general legal proposition is clearly established.

Corey Bland v. City of Newark

900 F.3d 77 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Aug 15, 2018

B “The doctrine of qualified immunity shields officials from civil liability so long as their conduct ‘does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have … Bland’s clearly established constitutional rights, we will reverse the order of the District Court so summary judgment may be entered for Defendants. 8 Because Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity

Grant v. City of Pittsburgh

98 F.3d 116 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Oct 18, 1996

The Court in Anderson held that to defeat qualified immunity it is not sufficient that the right at issue be clearly established as a general matter. … violated clearly established federal law."

Debrew v. Auman

354 F. App'x 639 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Nov 25, 2009

“[T]he qualified-immunity defense shields government agents from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would … Because the complaint failed to disclose whether the defendants’ actions did not violate a clearly established constitutional right, dismissal on qualified immunity grounds was premature.

Carlyle Bryan v. United States

913 F.3d 356 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jan 18, 2019

Further, it held that the officers were entitled to qualified immunity because their conduct did not violate clearly established Fourth Amendment rights. … For purposes of qualified immunity, a legal principle does not become “clearly established” the day we announce a decision, or even one or two days later.

Rosenberg v. Vangelo

93 F. App'x 373 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Mar 12, 2004

does not reflect clearly established law. … “[I]t is not sufficient that the right at issue be clearly established as a general matter.

Mammaro v. New Jersey Division of Child Protection & Permanency

814 F.3d 164 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Feb 19, 2016

Even if none exists, it may be possible that a “robust consensus of cases of persuasive authority” in the Court of Appeals could clearly establish a right for purposes of qualified immunity. Taylor v. … This is why caseworkers are protected by qualified immunity unless clearly established law puts them on notice that their conduct is a violation of the Constitution.

Lorenzo Oliver v. Debra Roquet

858 F.3d 180 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · May 24, 2017

Government officials are entitled to qualified immunity “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Sharp v. … That is, unless the plaintiff’s allegations state a claim of violation of clearly established law, “a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal before the commencement of discovery,” Mitchell v.

James Dennis v. City of Philadelphia

19 F.4th 279 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Nov 23, 2021

Humphrey6 and that they are entitled to qualified immunity because Dennis has failed to allege a constitutional violation of clearly established law. … Second, they argue that qualified immunity attaches because the constitutional claims asserted do not involve rights that were clearly established in 1992, when the alleged violations took place.

Crystal Weimer v. County of Fayette

972 F.3d 177 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Aug 25, 2020

“the right was clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct.” … Vernon responds that she is entitled to qualified immunity because, “at the time of the allegations, no clearly established [law] existed to put [her] on notice” that, as a prosecutor, her failure to intervene in the police

Gabrielle Eddy v. Virgin Islands Water And Power Authority

256 F.3d 204 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jul 10, 2001

does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known." … alleged a violation of a clearly established constitutional right.

Lee Evans v. City of Newark

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Sep 12, 2025

DISCUSSION Qualified immunity shields government officials, including law enforcement, from liability unless their conduct violates a clearly established right. 15 When assessing qualified immunity, our inquiry is … Existing caselaw clearly establishes and recognizes that right. 31 But Appellants 27 Wilson, 212 F.3d at 789. 28 Id.

Kelly v. Borough of Carlisle

622 F.3d 248 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Oct 4, 2010

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 … The ACLU takes issue with the District Court’s decision to skip the “violation prong” of the qualified immunity inquiry and proceed directly to the “clearly established” prong.

Curley v. Klem

298 F.3d 271 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Aug 2, 2002

If a court concludes that an officer's conduct did violate a clearly established constitutional right, then it must deny him the protection afforded by qualified immunity. … immunity issues early in the litigation is in tension with the reality that factual disputes often need to be resolved before determining whether the defendant's conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right

Michael Rivera v. Redfern

98 F.4th 419 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Apr 11, 2024

This decision makes clear that courts must evaluate the constitutional merits of a claim separate and apart from the question of whether the state actors are entitled to qualified immunity because the law was not clearly … But because that decision was not made in derogation of clearly established law, the officials are entitled to qualified immunity.

Joan Kedra v. Richard Schroeter

876 F.3d 424 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Nov 28, 2017

established as required to defeat qualified immunity. … to qualified immunity.

Africa v. City of Philadelphia

49 F.3d 945 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Mar 6, 1995

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, nor could he fairly be said to ‘ … qualified immunity.

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