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

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.

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

Cleveland-Perdue v. Brutsche

881 F.2d 427 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Aug 4, 1989

Under the Harlow standard, qualified immunity should be granted when the official's conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. … right allegedly violated must have been clearly established in a particularized sense.

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.").

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

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

Keesee v. Johnson

District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Jan 19, 2024

Burrows is also entitled to qualified immunity because his acts were authorized by a court order and thus did not violate Keesee’s clearly established statutory rights. See Frierson v. Goetz, 227 F. … Louis, 39 F.4th 494, 507 (8th Cir. 2022) (reversing denial of qualified immunity “because it is not clearly established that the intracorporate conspiracy doctrine does not apply to § 1983 conspiracy claims”).

Condon v. State

332 Md. 481 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Nov 1, 1993

established *493 by the State Treasurer. … We held that § 17-107(b) established a more limited waiver of the State’s immunity, without the precondi *496 tion of timely notice before suit was filed. Id. 327 Md. at 41 , 607 A.2d 552 .

Donald D. Kessler, on Their Own Behalf and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. National Enterprises, Inc. Arkansas No. 1 Lcc

238 F.3d 1006 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jan 30, 2001

The Co-Owners of this Regime shall have the right to use said recreational facilities jointly with other property regimes established or to be established by the Developer or such other persons who are licenses or guests … To establish constructive fraud under Arkansas law, the misrepresentation must be material. See Scollard v. Scollard, 329 Ark. 83 , 947 S.W.2d 345, 348 (1997).

Donna Singer v. State of Maine, John Lafaver

49 F.3d 837 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Apr 13, 1995

Qualified immunity shields public officials performing discretionary functions “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a … In applying these principles to a recent qualified immunity determination, the Supreme Court stated: “A necessary concomitant to the determination of whether the constitutional right asserted by a plaintiff is ‘clearly established

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.

Langford v. Johnson

District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 9, 2020

Defendants contend that plaintiff has pled no facts to support a § 1983 claim and that they “are therefore entitled to qualified immunity.” Defs.’ Mot. at 1. … It concludes nonetheless that the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity since the allegations fail to show their violation of a “clearly established statutory or constitutional right.” Harlow v.

Rudolph STECKL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MOTOROLA, INC., Defendant-Appellee

703 F.2d 392 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Apr 4, 1983

We agree with the district court that Steckl had established a prima facie case of discrimination as required by Texas Department of Community Affairs v. … He was clearly within the protected class, had applied for an available position for which he was qualified, and was denied a promotion which was given to a younger person.

Citizens in Charge, Inc. v. Jon Husted

810 F.3d 437 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jan 19, 2016

Public officials thus are eligible for qualified immunity if (1) they did not violate any constitutional guarantees or (2) the guarantee, even if violated, was not “clearly established” at the time of the alleged misconduct … Far from being clearly established, the plaintiffs’ rights under the Dormant Commerce Clause have not yet been established at all.

Martinez v. Carr

479 F.3d 1292 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Mar 27, 2007

The district court further found this seizure to be unlawful and ruled that Officer Carr w as not entitled to qualified immunity from suit because his conduct violated a “clearly established” constitutional right under … In order for the law to be considered clearly established at the second step of the Saucier analysis, we have explained that “‘there must be a Supreme Court or Tenth Circuit decision on point, or the clearly established

Christensen v. Park City Municipal Corp.

554 F.3d 1271 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Feb 6, 2009

Christensen] was not ‘clearly established’ in January 2004 [the date of the incident],” id. at 8, thus entitling the individual defendants to qualified immunity. … Until very recently, in a case of qualified immunity, district and appellate courts were required to resolve the issue of law before proceeding to whether it was clearly established. Saucier v.

SCANLON v. LAWSON

District Court, D. New Jersey · Sep 29, 2020

Thus, Plaintiff has not established a constitutional violation for failure to protect and the Court need not proceed to the qualified immunity analysis. … Therefore, even if deliberate indifference could be established on this record, Defendants Balicki and Surrency, in their individual capacities, would be entitled to qualified immunity.

Sensabaugh v. Krznarich

District Court, E.D. Wisconsin · Sep 5, 2023

To defeat qualified immunity, plaintiff must show that he was deprived of a constitutional right that was “clearly established at the time and under the circumstances presented.” Bianchi v. … It would be error for me to find that the general “right to be free of excessive force” is clearly established law for the purposes of qualified immunity. Emmons, 139 S.