Case law

Brandy Kane v. Shawn Barger

902 F.3d 185 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Aug 22, 2018

The District Court granted summary judgment in favor of Barger, finding that—even if Barger’s conduct was unlawful—he was still immune from suit under the exacting “clearly established” prong of our qualified immunity analysis … As such, the right was clearly established for purposes of qualified immunity. III.

State v. Jones

298 Kan. 324 · Supreme Court of Kansas · Nov 8, 2013

It gave content to the prerequisites for claiming K.S.A. 21-3219 immunity; it did not dictate procedure or the lack of it. Jones also attempts to draw an analogy to qualified immunity for government officials. … But, to tire extent such a comparison is sound, an issue we do not decide today, qualified immunity is waived if it is not raised early in a case as an affirmative defense. See Bentley v.

Chalmers v. The City of Chicago

District Court, N.D. Illinois · Mar 16, 2023

established so qualified immunity applies); Singleton v. … Qualified immunity also depends on the resolution of material facts.

Peppers v. Coates

694 F. Supp. 1562 · District Court, N.D. Georgia · Jun 30, 1988

If plaintiff’s allegations prove true, then Cozart has violated clearly established constitutional rights and he is not entitled to qualified immunity. … Therefore, Ewing is not entitled to qualified immunity.

Stevens v. Sanpete County

640 F. Supp. 376 · District Court, D. Utah · Jan 9, 1986

Reading Harlow literally, it has said that the proper inquiry for determining qualified immunity is simply whether the constitution’s probable cause requirement was clearly established. … Since the probable cause requirement is clearly established, one who makes an arrest without probable cause can never have qualified immunity.

Handy v. Fisher

District Court, D. Colorado · Apr 28, 2020

Because plaintiffs have met their burden on the first qualified immunity prong, I now consider their allegations that the law in question was clearly established. B. … Plaintiffs have asserted the violation was clearly established but do not provide independent argument on the qualified immunity prongs, perhaps because defendants did not address it in their motion.

Chapman v. Nichols

989 F.2d 393 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Mar 23, 1993

issue is not unconstitutional and that he is entitled to qualified immunity in any event because the law was not clearly established. 3 Plaintiffs respond that the policy is unconstitutional, that the law was clearly established … Two of the five cases held, as we do here, that the qualified immunity defense must fail in light of clearly established law. See Weber, 804 F.2d at 803-04 ; Jones, 770 F.2d at 742 n. 4.

Mathis v. Bess

767 F. Supp. 558 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jul 15, 1991

To defeat qualified immunity, the rights that plaintiffs assert were violated must have been clearly established in a “particularized sense.” P.C. v. McLaughlin, 913 F.2d 1033, 1039 (2d Cir.1990). … Under these circumstances, the doctrine of qualified immunity protects the stenographers’ discretion.

Putthoff v. Ancrum

934 S.W.2d 164 · Court of Appeals of Texas · Dec 19, 1996

In upholding the district court’s granting of the medical examiners’ motion for summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity, the court reasoned: Qualified immunity is available to government officials performing discretionary … Furthermore, the elements of official immunity and qualified immunity appear for all practical purposes to be the same.

Willie Dixon, Hyon Dixon v. Deputy Sheriff Donald Richer, Deputy Sheriff David Yarbrough

922 F.2d 1456 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · May 10, 1991

"Once a defendant raises the defense of qualified immunity `[t]he plaintiff carries the burden of convincing the court that the law was clearly established.'" Powell v. … Under the qualified immunity inquiry, we must next determine whether a reasonable officer could have believed that the conduct in question did not violate clearly established 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.

Franceski v. Plaquemines Parish School Board

602 F. Supp. 691 · District Court, E.D. Louisiana · Feb 7, 1985

rights must show that these rights were clearly established at the time of the conduct at issue, in order to overcome a defendant official’s qualified immunity. … Plaintiff has failed to assert a clearly established right which was violated. In this regard, the instant case is indistinguishable from Davis v. Scherer, supra, which is dispositive on the issue of qualified immunity.

Theresa Sheets Theresa Sheets, as the Administrator for the Estate of Tiffany Jean Montgomery, Deceased v. Sergeant Howard Mullins

287 F.3d 581 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 25, 2002

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity is an affirmative defense that shields government officials performing discretionary functions from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does “not violate clearly established … The second point of analysis is whether a public official’s conduct violated clearly established federal rights.

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.

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

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.

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

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.