Case law

Estate Frank P. Lagano v. Bergen County Prosecutors Offi

769 F.3d 850 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Oct 15, 2014

Mordaga responded that he is entitled to qualified immunity on the state-created danger claims because the Estate failed to establish either a violation of a constitutional right, or that the constitutional right was clearly … The District Court focused on the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis, holding that the constitutional right claimed to have been violated was not clearly established at the time of Lagano’s murder.

Farid v. Ellen

514 F. Supp. 2d 482 · District Court, S.D. New York · Aug 15, 2007

Thus, the qualified immunity defense is available, as a matter of law, to all defendants because the right was not clearly established. … All defendants are entitled to summary judgment on the defense of qualified immunity because the right was not clearly established.

Hunt v. Sapien

480 F. Supp. 2d 1271 · District Court, D. Kansas · Mar 29, 2007

No Clearly Established Law Even if Mr. … Hunt had established a constitutional violation sufficient to overcome the first prong of qualified immunity, he has not shown that the right was clearly established at the time he was placed in administrative segregation

Nelson v. Silverman

888 F. Supp. 1041 · District Court, S.D. California · Jun 6, 1995

The Bothke court merely assumed that there is a clearly established right of freedom from abusive tax collection activities for the purposes of dealing with a qualified immunity issue. … A defendant would be immune from suit if he could establish that his actions were objectively reasonable by reference to clearly established law. Harlow v.

Jones v. City & County of Denver

854 F.2d 1206 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Aug 12, 1988

Qualified immunity is an affirmative defense that shields governmental officials from personal liability unless their actions violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would … He relies on Colorado statutory and decisional law to argue that clearly established law requires arrest warrants in all cases.

Walker v. White

Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Oct 27, 2015

The district court dismissed on the ground that the State Defendants were entitled to qualified immunity. See Pearson v. … 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

STATE EX REL. W. VA. DHHR v. Kaufman

506 S.E.2d 93 · West Virginia Supreme Court · Jul 10, 1998

from suit based upon (1) statutory immunity; (2) quasi-judicial immunity; (3) common-law doctrine of qualified immunity and no violation of a clearly established right; and (4) absence of duty based upon the public duty … ; (3) common-law doctrine of qualified immunity and no violation of a clearly established right; and (4) absence of duty based upon the public duty doctrine.

George v. Morris

736 F.3d 829 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jul 30, 2013

Concluding that the deputies had not argued for its application, the court did not address the second prong of qualified immunity — the clearly established inquiry. … Our decision on the clearly established issue does not prevent the deputies from appropriately raising the second prong of qualified immunity at 1 a subsequent stage in the litigation, such as in a Rule 50 motion for judgment

Parker v. St. Lawrence County Public Health Department

102 A.D.3d 140 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Nov 21, 2012

In response, then Governor Paterson issued an executive order declaring a disaster emergency with respect to the influenza outbreak, which authorized state and local health departments to establish immunization programs in … We are unpersuaded by plaintiffs assertion that immunity pursuant to the PREP Act does not extend to qualified persons who administer a covered countermeasure to an individual without consent.

Aiken v. Nixon

236 F. Supp. 2d 211 · District Court, N.D. New York · Sep 30, 2002

Qualified Immunity — General Qualified immunity is available only to defendants in their individual capacities and only on that much of the claims seeking monetary damages. Lewis v. … The Court concludes that he is entitled to qualified immunity on this claim.

Richard Fields v. City of Philadelphia

862 F.3d 353 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jul 7, 2017

Katz, the Supreme Court held that courts must determine whether a constitutional right existed before deciding if it had been “clearly established” such that defendants would not be entitled to qualified immunity. 533 U.S … Government actors are entitled to qualified immunity unless they violated a constitutional right “so clearly established *361 that ‘every reasonable official would have understood that what he is doing violates that right

Estate of Hammers v. Douglas Cnty.

303 F. Supp. 3d 1134 · District Court, D. Kansas · Mar 28, 2018

Defendants argue Undersheriff Massey is entitled to qualified immunity, because the law was not clearly established that any of his actions violated the constitution. … While it is indeed clearly established that correctional facilities must provide adequate medical care to its inmates, it is not "clearly established"-for purposes of qualified immunity-that Undersheriff Massey's policies

Barnes v. Dekalb County

898 F. Supp. 2d 1317 · District Court, N.D. Georgia · Sep 24, 2012

Scott, 610 F.3d 701, 714 (11th Cir.2010) (qualified immunity offers complete protection for government officials sued in their individual capacities as long as their conduct does not “ ‘violate clearly established statutory … As discussed, qualified immunity protects government officials from liability for conduct that does not violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”

Mafuz Blanco v. Tirado Delgado

641 F. Supp. 1287 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Aug 8, 1986

As applied, this objective qualified immunity test requires a two part analysis: 1) whether the officer’s conduct violated a constitutional right “clearly established” at the time of the violation, and 2) whether the government … Defendant concedes that the law prohibiting patronage dismissals was clearly established at the time of plaintiff’s removal.

Bonenberger v. St. Louis Metropolitan Police Department

956 F. Supp. 2d 1059 · District Court, E.D. Missouri · Jul 8, 2013

Qualified immunity protects a government official from liability “unless the official’s conduct violated a clearly established constitutional or statutory right of which a reasonable person would have known.” … second part of the qualified immunity analysis.

Kenneth Hill v. Richard Trinci, Dominto Carrillo, Jackie Dent, Warner Lumpkins, Lee Williams, and Kandice Woodard

Texas Court of Appeals, 14th District (Houston) · Jul 24, 2012

Government officials performing discretionary functions have qualified immunity from a suit for damages under section 1983 so long as the official’s conduct does not violate clearly established constitutional or statutory … The plaintiff must show: (1) the official’s conduct violated a federally guaranteed right; (2) the right was clearly established; and (3) the official’s conduct was objectively unreasonable in light of the clearly established

Scott v. City of Columbus, Unpublished Decision (3-30-2001)

Ohio Court of Appeals · Mar 30, 2001

of clearly established law and the information that he possessed. … defendant's conduct did indeed violate clearly established rights).

Morales v. City of New York

59 F. Supp. 3d 573 · District Court, S.D. New York · Oct 6, 2014

Qualified immunity shields government officials from civil suits for damages “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. … Applying those standards here, there is no question that Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity.

Robert J. Pelletier v. Federal Home Loan Bank of San Francisco, and John W. Behrens

968 F.2d 865 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jun 29, 1992

in creating the qualified immunity doctrine. … On review of a denial of qualified immunity, “[w]e have jurisdiction only to decide if defendant’s conduct violated ... clearly established constitutional rights.” Todd v.

Buckheit v. Dennis

713 F. Supp. 2d 910 · District Court, N.D. California · May 18, 2010

Standard Governing Qualified Immunity Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, even if a constitutional violation occurred, governmental officials are immune if their conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory … Where a plaintiff asserts a Fourth Amendment violation based on the absence of probable cause, the relevant inquiry with respect to the “clearly established” prong of the qualified immunity analysis is “whether a ‘reasonable