Case law

KOSHNICK v. LYNOTT

District Court, D. New Jersey · Oct 15, 2021

Judicial immunity was established to permit judges to render decisions “with independence and without fear of consequences.” Pierson v. … App’x 645 (3d Cir. 2005) (“The § 1983 qualified immunity analysis applies equally to claims brought against public officials under § 1985; if an official is immune from suit under § 1983, that official also is immunized

Albers v. Whitley

546 F. Supp. 726 · District Court, D. Oregon · Aug 31, 1982

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY. Prison officials enjoy a qualified immunity from damages in § 1983 actions. Procunier v. Navarette, 434 U.S. 555 , 561— 62, 98 S.Ct. 855, 859-60 , 55 L.Ed.2d 24 (1978). … Here, there was no clearly established constitutional right to be free from the use of deadly force administered for the necessary purpose of quelling a prison riot and rescuing a hostage.

Bolden v. Village of Monticello

344 F. Supp. 2d 407 · District Court, S.D. New York · Nov 4, 2004

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity shields a public official from civil liability when his conduct “does not violate a clearly established statutory or constitutional right.” Richardson v. … As noted above, a police officer is entitled to qualified immunity if (1) his conduct does not violate clearly established constitutional rights, or (2) it was objectively reasonable for the officer to believe his conduct

Lee v. Brown

232 N.J. 114 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Feb 21, 2018

The panel held that they were entitled only to qualified immunity. … The TCA effectuates the Legislature's intent to establish immunity for government action as the rule and liability as the exception.

Morgan v. Stringer

945 F. Supp. 1129 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Nov 12, 1996

established constitutional right at the time that they acted (consistently with that reason for the rule, Harlow, id. at 818, 102 S.Ct. at 2738 stressed the notion that motions for summary judgment on qualified immunity … The principles of qualified immunity that we reaffirm today require that Anderson be permitted to argue that he is entitled to *1132 summary judgment on the ground that, in light of the clearly established principles governing

Betances v. Fischer

519 F. App'x 39 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jun 4, 2013

Arguing that they were entitled to qualified immunity on the ground that the law was not clearly established at the time of their challenged conduct, defendants moved to dismiss pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). … The district court denied the motions, ruling that plaintiffs’ rights became clearly established when this Court decided Earley v.

Julian C. Lee v. Jake Gregory, United States of America, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation

363 F.3d 931 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Apr 7, 2004

Gregory moved for summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds. … Although the facts in Mendocino Environmental Center are different from the facts in issue here, “[a]n officer is not entitled to qualified immunity on the grounds that the law is not clearly established every time a novel

Billy J. Hale v. Carl Townley, Billy J. Hale v. Carl Townley

45 F.3d 914 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Mar 23, 1995

If disputed factual issues material to qualified immunity are present, the district court’s denial of summary judgment sought on the basis of qualified immunity is not appealable. Feagley v. … An official’s conduct is protected by qualified immunity if, in light of legal rules that were clearly established at the time of the' action, it was objectively reasonable.

Ratliff v. DeKalb County, GA

62 F.3d 338 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 9, 1995

court assumed for the purposes of its decision about whether the applicable law was clearly established. … The right to be free from retaliation is clearly established as a first amendment right and as a statutory right under Title VII; but no clearly established right exists under the equal protection clause to be free from

Gooden v. Howard County

954 F.2d 960 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Jan 23, 1992

Gooden further argues that the defendants did not act reasonably in light of clearly established law. … However, “if the test of ‘clearly established law’ were to be applied at this level of generality,”....

Graham v. Gray

827 F.2d 679 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Sep 1, 1987

established law.” … violation of clearly established law, a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal before the commencement of discovery.”

Price v. County of San Diego

990 F. Supp. 1230 · District Court, S.D. California · Jan 8, 1998

immunity. 23 Qualified immunity protects government officials from lawsuits based on their conduct in situations in which they exercise discretion, insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established rights. … If the right was not clearly established, then the deputies are entitled to qualified immunity. See Romero v. Kitsap County, 931 F.2d 624, 629 (9th Cir.1991).

John Hogan v. City of Corpus Christi, Texas

722 F.3d 725 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jul 15, 2013

’s motion for summary judgment predicated upon qualified immunity: “First, the district court decides that a certain course of conduct would, as a matter of law, be objectively unreasonable in light of clearly established … “Qualified immunity shields government officials from civil damages liability unless the official violated a statutory or constitutional right that was clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct.”10

Tortes v. King County

84 P.3d 252 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Sep 22, 2003

These individual public officials are immune from personal liability under the doctrine of qualified immunity. … It is preferred that a defendant's entitlement to qualified immunity be decided as a matter of law on summary judgment. [19] The central purpose of qualified immunity is to protect public officials from interference with

Rich v. United States

158 F. Supp. 2d 619 · District Court, D. Maryland · Jul 13, 2001

“Government officials performing discretionary functions are entitled to qualified immunity from liability for civil damages to the extent that ‘their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … To obtain qualified immunity, Defendants must establish that in light of this clearly established law, the agents reasonably could have believed that the search of Plaintiffs’ home was lawful.

Anthony v. Vaccaro

43 F. Supp. 2d 843 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Mar 16, 1999

Gilley, 957 F.2d 1347, 1348 (6th Cir.1992). of Government officials are generally entitled to qualified immunity when performing discretionary functions as long as the conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory … In order to assert a violation of a “clearly established” right and defeat a qualified immunity defense, “[t]he contours of the right must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is

Alan D. Whatley v. Robert E. Philo

817 F.2d 19 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · May 18, 1987

GEE, Circuit Judge: This § 1988 case presents the question whether the plaintiff has vitiated the defendants’ qualified immunity defense. … The defendants asserted their qualified immunity defense. The district court dismissed on summary judgment, 1 on the basis that Whatley had failed to overcome the immunity defense.

Palmer v. Sanderson

9 F.3d 1433 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Nov 23, 1993

Qualified Immunity Law enforcement officials sued under § 1983 are entitled to qualified immunity if (1) the “right” they allegedly violated was not “clearly established” at the time of the violation, or (2) if a reasonable … Sanderson and Morrisette argue that the district court erred in denying their motion for summary judgment based on qualified immunity because (1) the Fourth Amendment’s protection against excessive force was not clearly established

Patton v. Wood County Humane Society

154 Ohio App. 3d 670 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Sep 30, 2003

immunity from suit in a Section 1983 action so long as their conduct does not violate clearly established federal statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. … of clearly established law and the information that he possessed.

Acklin v. City of Inkster

93 F. Supp. 3d 778 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Mar 20, 2015

Specifically, the Defendants contend they should be entitled to qualified immunity because they contend they did not violate any statutory or constitutional right that was clearly established and of which a reasonable person … As discussed, Acklin’s Fourth Amendment claim for excessive force while handcuffed is “clearly established;” thus, Plaintiff meets that prong of the qualified immunity analysis. See Meirthew, 417 Fed.Appx. at 499 .