Case law

JACOBS v. CUMBERLAND COUNTY

District Court, D. New Jersey · Jun 4, 2019

Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 231 (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 … Insomuch as the CO Defendants would like to invoke the doctrine of qualified immunity because their purported after-the-fact conspiratorial actions did not violate a then-clearly established constitutional right, that attempt

In Re Iacono

120 B.R. 691 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. New York · Nov 2, 1990

IRAs were originally established to ease the tax burden of employees that were not covered by a qualified pension plan as well as to encourage savings for retirement. … 10), retirement or other plan established by a corporation, which is qualified under section 401 of the U.S.

City of Hialeah v. Fernandez

661 So. 2d 335 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Sep 27, 1995

[FN3] Once the qualified immunity defense is raised, plaintiffs bear the burden of showing that the federal "rights" allegedly violated were "clearly established." … [The officer] is entitled to qualified immunity because it was not clearly established that the amount of force used outside the restaurant was unlawful. Post, 7 F.3d at 1559-60 (citations omitted).

Artis v. Cyphers

100 Md. App. 633 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jun 8, 1994

The Mitchell Court continued, at 526, 105 S.Ct. at 2815 : “Unless the plaintiffs allegations state a claim of violation of clearly established law, a defendant pleading qualified im *650 munity is entitled to dismissal before … judgment for the defendant on the ground that even under the defendant’s version of the facts the defendant’s conduct violated clearly established law, whether the law clearly proscribed the actions the defendant claims

Emmanuel Mervilus v. Union County

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jul 13, 2023

Kaminskas Does Not Have Qualified Immunity. After holding Mervilus’s claim against Kaminskas failed, the District Court did not address qualified immunity. … Whetzel, 256 F.3d 120, 126 n.1 (3d Cir. 2001) (reaching qualified immunity on appeal from a decision that did not reach the issue); Est. of Smith v.

McKie v. Van Buren, County of

District Court, W.D. Michigan · Sep 27, 2019

Plaintiff argues that the Magistrate Judge properly held that the individual Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity where any reasonable officer in the same position would have taken reasonable measures for … Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818-19(1982) (“If the law was clearly established, the immunity defense ordinarily should fail, since a reasonably competent public official should know the law governing his conduct.”).

Robin Kirkland Neal v. Daniel Ficcadenti

895 F.3d 576 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jul 12, 2018

We have jurisdiction over this interlocutory appeal of a denial of qualified immunity because the issue of a violation of a clearly established constitutional right is a question of law. See Jackson v. … Clearly Established Right We turn now to the question of whether or not the constitutional right that Officer Ficcadenti allegedly violated was clearly established as of June 6, 2012.

Heather Hinterberger v. Iroquios School District

548 F. App'x 50 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Dec 5, 2013

“District court opinions may be relevant to the determination of when a right was clearly established for qualified immunity analysis.” Doe v. Delie, 257 F.3d 309, 321 (3d Cir. 2001). … As Hinterberger’s alleged right was not clearly established at the time of her injury, Loftus is entitled to qualified immunity from suit. III.

Virden v. Roper

302 Ark. 125 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Apr 23, 1990

The appealability of a denial of summary judgment based on qualified immunity from suit is clearly established. Robinson v. Beaumont, supra; Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511 (1985); and see Cohen v. … They maintain in the alternative if a violation of a constitutional right occurred, it is not a “clearly established” right and, hence, appellants are entitled to qualified immunity under Mitchell, supra.

Nikos Kidis v. Jean Reid

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Sep 25, 2020

Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982) (holding that government officials are generally entitled to immunity from civil damages as long as they did not “violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights”); see … ] from raising the qualified immunity defense on appeal from a final judgment.”).

Rzeszewski

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 30, 2026

Garcia, and because no clearly established rights are at issue, Officer Rzeszewski is entitled to qualified immunity. Doc. 26 at 21—28. In opposition, Dr. … Garcia had a clearly established right to be free from arrest and prosecution absent probable cause, qualified immunity does not protect Officer Rzeszewski. Doc. 33 at 16-17.

Sherrod v. SCHOOL BD. OF PALM BEACH COUNTY

703 F. Supp. 2d 1279 · District Court, S.D. Florida · Mar 18, 2010

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity operates to ensure that “before they are subjected to suit, [public] officers are on notice their conduct is unlawful.” Hope v. … Thus, qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions from liability for civil damages unless their actions violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable

Lavigne v. Forshee

307 Mich. App. 530 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Oct 28, 2014

“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 … Thus, in the case of a police officer, qualified immunity will not apply if the officer transgresses a right that was “clearly established,” when “‘it would be clear to a reasonable officer that [her] conduct was unlawful

Vojvodich v. Lopez

48 F.3d 879 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Mar 30, 1995

State officials are protected by qualified immunity for alleged constitutional torts if their conduct does not violate clearly established law effective at the time of the alleged tort.24 … The second step in the qualified immunity analysis is determining whether the constitutional rights allegedly violated were clearly established at the time the events occurred.

Mumm v. Mornson

708 N.W.2d 475 · Supreme Court of Minnesota · Jan 10, 2006

rights was not clearly established. … To avoid application of qualified immunity, the law regarding Mornson’s right to be free from the unreasonable use of force must have been clearly established at the time of the pursuit.

Carla Blake v. Don Lambert

921 F.3d 215 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Apr 5, 2019

The district court denied qualified immunity. … “Once invoked, a plaintiff bears the burden of rebutting qualified immunity by showing two things: (1) that the officials violated a statutory or constitutional right and (2) that the right was ‘clearly established at the

C.F. v. Capistrano Unified School District

656 F. Supp. 2d 1190 · District Court, C.D. California · Sep 15, 2009

established’ to preclude qualified immunity.” … Thus, the doctrine of qualified immunity looks to whether there was a clearly established right in issue.

Hamrick v. State

426 S.C. 638 · Supreme Court of South Carolina · May 15, 2019

Accident reconstruction requires expertise,6 and from the outset, the State sought to establish Officer Harris's qualifications as an expert in accident reconstruction. … Second, the trial court failed to make the necessary findings that the State established the foundation required by Rule 702. See Council, 335 S.C. at 20, 515 S.E.2d at 518.

The Estate of Roosevelt Holliman v. Turner

District Court, N.D. Mississippi · Sep 1, 2023

constitutional right, and (2) that the right was clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct.” … Once qualified immunity has been “raised as a defense by a defendant, … the plaintiffs have the burden of establishing the proof and arguments necessary to overcome it.” Strickland v. City of Crenshaw, 114 F.

HINDMAN v. CITY OF PITTSBURGH, PENNSYLVANIA

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 16, 2024

The basis for his assertion is strangely worded, but he appears to be arguing that the constitutional right was not “clearly established” at the time he acted because “[t]here is no clearly established right to be free … the defendant’s conduct violated a clearly established right.”