Case law

Jane ANDRE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. the BENDIX CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellee

841 F.2d 172 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Mar 2, 1988

To meet her burden of establishing a prima facie case of discriminatory discharge, Andre must therefore show both that she was qualified for and satisfactorily performing the duties of her job. Lee v. … The district court held that Andre met her initial burden of establishing a prima facie case of discriminatory treatment because she proved that she was a member of a protected class, she was qualified for her position and

Henry Clash v. Michael Beatty

77 F.3d 1045 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Mar 12, 1996

Beatty moved for summary judgment on the ground that he enjoys a qualified immunity from liability, because, even if he did what Clash described, those actions would not have violated any clearly established Fourth Amendment … When a defendant officer raises the defense of qualified immunity, the plaintiff bears the burden of showing the existence of the allegedly clearly established constitutional right. Rice v.

Driever v. United States of America

District Court, District of Columbia · Oct 19, 2020

Qualified immunity protects officials from suits unless their actions are (1) plainly incompetent, or (2) committed with knowledge of violation of clearly established law. See Malley v. … Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 227 (2009) (finding that officials were entitled to qualified immunity because it was not clearly established that their conduct was unconstitutional).

James P. Kyricopoulos v. Town of Orleans

967 F.2d 14 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Jun 18, 1992

immunity shielded the police officer who arrested appellant from liability for damages; and (3) absolute immunity protected this officer from liability for testimony given at the grand jury and at trial. … Because the district court clearly was correct in finding the police officer absolutely immune for testimony given at trial, see Briscoe v.

Kaminsky v. Rosenblum

929 F.2d 922 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Apr 9, 1991

DISCUSSION I Doctrine of Qualified Immunity The doctrine of qualified immunity evolved as a balance between the need, on one hand, to hold responsible public officials exercising their power in a wholly unjustified manner … Even when a plaintiffs federal rights are so clearly defined that a reasonable public official would know that his actions might violate those rights, qualified or good faith immunity might still be available as a bar to

Sims v. City of Seattle

District Court, W.D. Washington · Sep 19, 2023

Defendants have raised a viable issue regarding the manner in which the Court analyzed 19 qualified immunity. See Cunningham v. … Fry, 873 F.3d 817, 821 (9th Cir. 2017) (“[T]he 4 ‘clearly established’ inquiry is a question of law that only a judge can decide.”).

Sherry Wilkerson v. City of Akron, Ohio

906 F.3d 477 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Oct 15, 2018

Qualified immunity shields officers from liability so long as they do not violate clearly established rights that a reasonable officer in their shoes would have recognized. Harlow v. … Danzy did not violate Thomas’s clearly established Fourth Amendment rights.

Robert Walker v. Robert McClellan Superintendent, Thomas A. Coughlin, Iii, L. Bates, Hearing Officer

126 F.3d 127 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Oct 9, 1997

Alternatively, the district court noted that dismissal was mandated on account of Bates’s right to qualified immunity because Walker had no clearly established right to call witnesses in his defense at the disciplinary hearing … Qualified immunity protects prison officials from personal liability under § 1983 when their “conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”

David Lee v. City of Portsmouth

2002 DNH 064 · District Court, D. New Hampshire · Mar 19, 2002

"Clearly established for the purposes of qualified immunity means that the contours of the right must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that right." … The next step is to ask whether the right to be free from excessive force under the facts alleged was clearly established.

Bernard Jones v. Rick McNeese

746 F.3d 887 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Mar 26, 2014

was clearly established at the time of the alleged misconduct. … was 'clearly established.'"

Pierson v. Itawamba County, Mississippi

District Court, N.D. Mississippi · Jun 3, 2020

Thomas, 843 F.3d 172, 177 (Sth Cir. 2016) (“Qualified immunity protects officers from suit unless their conduct violates a clearly established constitutional right.”) (quoting Mace v. … Qualified immunity calls for a bifurcated test in which the court must first determine (1) “whether the plaintiff has alleged a violation of a clearly established statutory or constitutional right that was clearly established

Cramer v. Bohinski

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 6, 2023

Alternatively, The defendants assert that they are entitled to qualified immunity because the rights allegedly violated were not clearly established at the time of the violation. (Id.) … the right was clearly established.

McKnight v. Kingsboro

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 6, 2024

At this stage of the litigation, these averments are sufficient to establish that Defendants Ferrari and Heine violated clearly established law for the purposes of qualified immunity. See Dayoub v. … Additionally, the “clearly established” test relates only to a qualified immunity, not a sovereign immunity, analysis. Brautigam, 684 F.

Jack E. Turner v. E. T. Raynes and Bill Edd Jones

611 F.2d 92 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jan 31, 1980

Sheriff Jones’ Qualified Immunity The court below entered summary judgment for Sheriff Jones grounded in his qualified official immunity. This must be upheld. … Searching for clues to the Court’s position, however, we cannot ignore another possible reading of footnote 7: that only a clearly inordinate exercise of unconferred jurisdiction by a judge — one so crass as to establish

Guercio v. Brody

500 U.S. 904 · Supreme Court of the United States · Apr 29, 1991

Whitington v. Zavaras

424 F. App'x 777 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jun 1, 2011

“Qualified immunity protects governmental officials from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have … “The qualified immunity inquiry has two prongs: whether a constitutional violation occurred, and whether the violated right was ‘clearly established’ at the time of the violation.” Id. at 1166-67.

Neri v. City of San Benito, Texas

District Court, S.D. Texas · Aug 22, 2024

In his Motion to Dismiss, Stansbury pleads qualified immunity. Dkt. No. 17, pp. 3- 4. Resultingly, it is Neri who bears the burden of establishing that qualified immunity is inappropriate. … Given the above, Stansbury is entitled to the protections of qualified immunity because there is no clearly established law that put him on notice that his conduct was unconstitutional.

ROBERTSON v. REAGLE

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Aug 29, 2024

It is unclear whether providers hired by a prison to provide care to inmates can raise the qualified immunity defense. See Currie v. … constitutional right was ‘clearly established" at the time of the official's alleged misconduct.").

James Raper, Jr. v. Tina Maxwell

Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Apr 10, 2023

Hickey, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas, adopting the report and recommendations of reviewed the record and the parties’ arguments on appeal, we conclude that qualified immunity … Roy, 847 F.3d 637, 641– 42 (8th Cir. 2017) (reviewing the failure to state a claim de novo and explaining that a right must be clearly established for an alleged violation to defeat qualified immunity).

Estella Lucero v. Dennis B. Hart, Rugh J. Papp, and Susie Mitchell

915 F.2d 1367 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Oct 3, 1990

Government officials are immune from liability for civil damages under § 1983 unless their conduct violates “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … Under Harlow’s “reasonable person” test, no clearly established statutory or constitutional right was violated. Thus, the district court’s grant of summary judgment on the issue of qualified immunity is affirmed. B.