Case law

Ecclesiastical Order of the ISM of AM, Inc. v. Chasin

653 F. Supp. 1200 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Nov 24, 1986

Defend.ants claim that they have satisfied the requisite test for qualified immunity; to wit, the “objective reasonableness of an official’s conduct as measured by reference to clearly established law.” Harlow v. … Agents of the IRS do not have absolute immunity — only qualified immunity — from suit. Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511 , 105 S.Ct. 2806 , 86 L.Ed.2d 411 (1985).

Young v. Lacy

District Court, S.D. West Virginia · Sep 28, 2018

See Pearson, 555 U.S. at 243 (holding that “petitioners [were] entitled to qualified immunity because [they] . . . did not violate clearly established law.”). … establish, it is unnecessary for this court to analyze this portion of the qualified immunity inquiry.

Ward v. Olson

939 F. Supp. 2d 956 · District Court, D. Minnesota · Apr 8, 2013

Excessive Force “The doctrine of qualified immunity protects [law enforcement] officers from personal liability under § 1983 insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established ... constitutional rights of which … Clearly Established Constitutional Right A right is clearly established if “it would be clear to a reasonable officer that his conduct was unlawful in the situation he confronted.” White v.

Baird v. Renbarger

576 F.3d 340 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Aug 3, 2009

Renbarger’s qualified immunity defense. … We therefore proceed to the second step of the qualified-immunity inquiry and ask whether the right at issue was clearly established: [T]he right the official is alleged to have violated must have been “clearly established

Moore v. Newton

220 F. Supp. 3d 275 · District Court, E.D. New York · Dec 1, 2016

“Qualified immunity protects public officials from liability for civil damages when one of two conditions is satisfied: (a) the defendant’s action did not violate clearly established law, or (b) it was objectively reasonable … Qualified immunity extends to circumstances where an official’s conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known,” and applies “regardless of whether

Limone v. Condon

372 F.3d 39 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Jun 14, 2004

Qualified immunity is a judge-made doctrine. … Having erected this straw man, the appellants then shred it: although Brady was decided prior to 1967, they assert that it was not clearly established then (indeed, it may not be clearly established today) that the

Pleasant View Baptist Church v. Andy Beshear

78 F.4th 286 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 14, 2023

clearly established in the future. … To defeat the Governor’s qualified-immunity defense, they must prove that Tandon’s legal framework was “clearly established at the time” that the Governor acted. Wesby, 138 S.

Martin v. City of Oceanside

205 F. Supp. 2d 1142 · District Court, S.D. California · Jun 7, 2002

However, the Court finds that the officers are entitled to qualified immunity because their conduct did not violate a clearly established right of plaintiffs. … Therefore, the officers did not violate a clearly established right of plaintiffs. The *1153 officers are entitled to qualified immunity as to this claim. 3.

Wilbur Barnes v. Tony Wright

449 F.3d 709 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 2, 2006

Qualified Immunity “[T]he Supreme Court [has] held that ‘government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established … Second, we consider whether the violation involved a clearly established constitutional right of which a reasonable person would have known.

Olivo Gonzalez v. Teacher's Retirement Board

208 F. Supp. 2d 163 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Jun 12, 2002

Plaintiffs counter by arguing that the doctrine of qualified immunity does not protect the Defendants from a violation of clearly established constitutional or statutory rights, and that the Court should not abstain pursuant … Qualified Immunity Defendants invoke the doctrine of qualified immunity in support of their motion to dismiss.

West v. Phillips

883 F. Supp. 308 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Aug 26, 1994

The Applicability of Qualified Immunity to the Defendants The Supreme Court established the modern doctrine of qualified immunity in Harlow v. Fitzgerald, supra. … The test for determining qualified immunity in Harlow, Anderson, and Casteel focuses on the violation of a “clearly established” constitutional right, not a “clearly established” affirmative defense. 11 In support of her

Frohmader v. Wayne

766 F. Supp. 909 · District Court, D. Colorado · Jun 7, 1991

Once a defendant raises a qualified immunity defense, the plaintiff assumes the burden of showing that the defendant has violated clearly established law. Hannula, 907 F.2d at 131 . … The principles of qualified immunity entitle Wayne to summary judgment on the ground that, in light of the clearly established law governing the use of force, he could, as a matter of law, reasonably have believed that his

Santos v. Zabbara

984 F. Supp. 2d 106 · District Court, E.D. New York · Oct 28, 2013

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity shields Defendants, as “government officials performing discretionary functions,” from liability for damages under Section 1983 “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established … “An officer conducting a search is entitled to qualified immunity where clearly established law does not show that the search violated the Fourth Amendment.” Pearson, 555 U.S. at 243-44 , 129 S.Ct. 808 .

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.”

Lintz v. Skipski

807 F. Supp. 1299 · District Court, W.D. Michigan · Nov 25, 1992

However, the qualified immunity doctrine shields government officials performing discretionary functions from civil damages liability provided their conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … Skipski violated a clearly established constitutional right. Therefore, her motion will be granted based upon the doctrine of qualified immunity.

Moore v. Evans

124 N.C. App. 35 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Oct 15, 1996

Generally, qualified immunity protects public officials from personal liability for performing discretionary functions to the extent that such conduct “ ‘does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights … In order to establish the existence of an official’s right to the defense of qualified immunity, one must (1) identify the specific right allegedly violated; (2) determine whether that right was clearly established; and (

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

Frank Snider, III v. Matthew Peters

752 F.3d 1149 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · May 30, 2014

Qualified immunity shields government officials from liability and the burdens of litigation in a § 1983 action unless the official's conduct violates a clearly established constitutional or statutory right of which a reasonable … ; and (2) the right was clearly established at the time of the deprivation."

Carey v. Inslee

364 F. Supp. 3d 1220 · District Court, W.D. Washington · Mar 11, 2019

This does not mean that the subjective good faith defense is coextensive with qualified immunity. … For example, in a situation where a broad constitutional holding may or may not apply to a novel fact pattern, qualified immunity would apply if it was not "clearly established" that the holding extended to the new scenario

Estate of D.E.; D.E., individually by and through his mother, Christine Erickson; Christine Erickson, individually; and I.E., a minor, by and through her mother, Christine Erickson v. West Virginia Department of Health and Human Resources; Jeffery M. Pack; and Jennifer L. Raper, individually and in her capacity as an employee/agent of West Virginia Department of Health and Human Resources

Intermediate Court of Appeals of West Virginia · Nov 4, 2024

to a good faith report of child abuse or neglect; and both are entitled to qualified immunity because there is no allegation that they violated a clearly established 3 law … “[I]t is well- established that matters involving qualified immunity, such as the case presently before us, require a type of ‘heightened pleading’ standard.” W. Virginia Reg'l Jail & Corr. Facility Auth. v.