Case law

United States v. Albert Tantalo

680 F.2d 903 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jun 3, 1982

Defense counsel urged that since the appellant had provided immunized testimony before the grand jury, the Government was called upon to present evidence to the court to establish not only an independent basis for the indictment … The district court’s ruling which upheld the indictments, without calling upon the government to establish that the evidence it proposed to present at the trial was untainted by the appellant’s immunized testimony, was in

Trammell v. Thomason

559 F. Supp. 2d 1281 · District Court, M.D. Florida · Jun 3, 2008

“In this Circuit, the law can be “clearly established” for qualified immunity purposes only by decisions from the U.S. … Thus, the Court turns to the next sequential step in a qualified immunity analysis, which is to determine whether the right was “clearly established.” Was the right clearly established?

Allstate Sweeping, LLC v. Calvin Black

706 F.3d 1261 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Feb 7, 2013

Under the qualified-immunity doctrine a public officer or employee is subject to liability only for violating a federal -9- constitutional or statutory right that was clearly established … We conclude that Black is entitled to qualified immunity on the retaliation claim. III.

Lee v. Sandberg

136 F.3d 94 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Dec 19, 1997

Even if a clearly established statutory or constitutional right is violated, qualified immunity is nonetheless a defense if the officers' unlawful actions were objectively reasonable "as measured by reference to clearly established … Therefore, the State Troopers are not entitled to summary judgment under the "clearly established right" prong of the qualified immunity standard. 32 The State Troopers are nevertheless entitled to summary judgment on qualified

Stipetich v. Grosshans

235 Wis. 2d 69 · Court of Appeals of Wisconsin · Apr 6, 2000

"Qualified immunity protects government officials from civil liability if their conduct does not violate a person's clearly established constitutional rights." Id. at 469 . … Although qualified immunity is an affirmative defense, the plaintiff has the burden of demonstrating "by closely analogous case law, that the defendant has violated a clearly established constitutional right." Id.

Hill v. Miller

878 F. Supp. 114 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Feb 23, 1995

As the Seventh Circuit recently reaffirmed, “[p]olice officers who use force are entitled to qualified immunity from suits for damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 ‘insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established … Accordingly, Miller maintains that his conduct did not violate clearly established rights.

Cynthia Clayborn v. Dennis Struebling

734 F.3d 807 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Oct 16, 2013

“Qualified immunity protects governmental officials from liability for civil damages if they have not violated ‘clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’” … Examining qualified immunity, this court applies a two-part test.

Trifax Corp. v. District of Columbia

53 F. Supp. 2d 20 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 14, 1999

The second step of the qualified immunity analysis requires the Court to consider whether the individually named defendants “violate[d] clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would … As such, Plaintiff is simply unable to establish that Defendants Gaskins and Thomas violated “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”

Aviles v. Department of the Army

666 F. Supp. 2d 224 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Sep 8, 2009

Qualified immunity is applicable unless the official’s conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right. Anderson, 483 U.S. at 640 , 107 S.Ct. 3034 . … violated that clearly established constitutional right.”

Patrick Stockdale v. Kim Helper

979 F.3d 498 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Oct 30, 2020

But because her conduct did not violate any clearly established law, qualified immunity protects her. We affirm in part and reverse in part. I. … Qualified Immunity. That leaves Helper’s qualified immunity defense against Stockdale and Dunning’s § 1983 claim.

Ziemba v. Armstrong

433 F. Supp. 2d 248 · District Court, D. Connecticut · May 17, 2006

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY The qualified immunity inquiry requires the court to ask, first, whether the defendant’s conduct violated a constitutional right. Saucier v. … Qualified Immunity Argument For the reasons stated in Part II, supra, the court finds that Mangiafico is not entitled to qualified immunity.

Elizabeth Harvey v. Plains Township Police Department Edward J. Walsh Ronald Dombroski Plains Township Board Joan A. Chukinas

421 F.3d 185 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Aug 30, 2005

Qualified Immunity “Qualified immunity shields public officials performing discretionary functions from § 1983 and Fourteenth Amendment liability ‘insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or … Our qualified immunity inquiry is a two step process. First, we must determine whether the defendants violated “clearly established” rights. Id.

Duckworth v. St. Louis Metropolitan Police Department

491 F.3d 401 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jul 19, 2007

immunity ... typically, the issue whether the federal right allegedly infringed was clearly established”). … The next step in the qualified immunity analysis “is to ask whether the right was clearly established ... in light of the specific context of the case.” See Saucier v.

Mark Cook v. Roberta Sheldon and Nelson Saldana, New York State Troopers

41 F.3d 73 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Dec 2, 1994

We conclude that the Troopers have not yet earned qualified immunity as a matter of law because, under the facts alleged by Cook, the Troopers may be held to have violated Cook’s clearly established rights. … To evaluate the Troopers’ right to qualified immunity, we must again examine whether the malicious prosecution claim alleges a violation of Cook’s clearly established federal rights.

DeNieva v. Reyes

966 F.2d 480 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jun 5, 1992

Thus, as we stated in Romero , [t]he qualified immunity test necessitates three inquiries: (1) the identification of the specific right allegedly violated; (2) the determination of whether that right was so ‘clearly established … Did DeNieva Identify a Specific Right, and Was it Clearly Established? We can consider the first two prongs of the Romero test together, as both raise the question of Reyes’ violation of a clearly established right.

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.

Tisdale v. Gravitt

51 F. Supp. 3d 1378 · District Court, N.D. Georgia · Sep 30, 2014

Qualified Immunity Defendants also move for summary judgment on Plaintiffs on the alternative grounds of the affirmative defense of qualified immunity. … establish a constitutional violation; and second, whether the right violated was clearly established.

Samuel Campbell v. City of Springboro, Ohio

700 F.3d 779 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Nov 29, 2012

Qualified immunity “shields government officials performing discretionary functions from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … Clearly Established Right For a right to be “clearly established,” “[t]he contours of that right must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that right.”

Nicholas v. Tucker

89 F. Supp. 2d 475 · District Court, S.D. New York · Mar 14, 2000

In consequence, summary judgment the basis of qualified immunity is not appropriate. … clearly established constitutional right.); Al-Jundi v.

Opinion No. 91-562 (1991) Ag

Oklahoma Attorney General Reports · May 10, 1991

A COUNTY MAY NEVERTHELESS ESTABLISH IMMUNITY FROM TORT LIABILITY, IF IT CAN ESTABLISH FACT THAT WOULD ENTITLE IT TO ONE OF SEVERAL EXEMPTION PROVISIONS FOUND WITHIN THE ACT. … FURTHER, IMMUNITY FOR INCORPORATED CASA ORGANIZATIONS COULD ALSO BE MORE CLEARLY CONFERRED BY AMENDING THE RELEVANT PROVISION TO SPECIFICALLY ADDRESS IMMUNITY FROM VICARIOUS LIABILITY FOR THE INCORPORATED ORGANIZATION ITSELF