Case law

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.

Bever v. Gilbertson

724 F.2d 1083 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Jan 11, 1984

By eliminating the subjective component of the qualified immunity claim, the Supreme Court clearly intended to facilitate disposition of claims of qualified immunity on summary judgment motions, but one must read much into … A public official, clothed with qualified immunity, is not required to anticipate future development of constitutional doctrine, but he is required to respect the established constitutional rights of others.

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.

Pride v. Kansas Highway Patrol

793 F. Supp. 279 · District Court, D. Kansas · May 1, 1992

of the law that was clearly established at the time of the offensive conduct. … Because the threshold requirement of establishing a constitutional violation is not met, the qualified immunity analysis necessarily terminates at this point.

Ferguson v. Leiter

220 F. Supp. 2d 875 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Sep 18, 2002

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity is an affirmative defense that shields public officials performing discretionary functions from civil damages if their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … Once a qualified immunity defense is raised, the “plaintiff is obliged to present facts which if true would constitute a violation of clearly established law.” Dominque v.

Dorsey v. Sokoloff

381 F. Supp. 3d 521 · District Court, D. Maryland · May 17, 2019

The second prong of the qualified immunity analysis examines whether a police officer's conduct violated a constitutional right that was clearly established at the time that the conduct occurred. … In consequence, the Fourth Circuit held that the officer was not entitled to qualified immunity for seven of the Taser shocks because he had violated the clearly established constitutional right of an arrestee to be free

Conlogue v. Hamilton

906 F.3d 150 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Oct 11, 2018

officials who act incompetently or in disregard of clearly established legal principles. … Qualified immunity inoculates government officials from civil liability based on their discretionary actions and decisions which, although injurious, "do[] not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights

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.

United States Ex Rel. Burlbaw v. Orenduff

400 F. Supp. 2d 1276 · District Court, D. New Mexico · Nov 15, 2005

If Plaintiffs can do so, they must then show the statutory right was clearly established. Id. … Since Plaintiffs have failed to raise an issue of fact concerning the existence of an FCA violation, the Court need not address the “clearly established law” aspect of the qualified-immunity doctrine.

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.”

Patrick Stockdale v. Kim Helper

Court of Appeals of Tennessee · May 8, 2024

any clearly established law. . . . … clearly established right of the Plaintiffs to which General Helper is alleged to have violated.”

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.

Bloem v. Unknown Department of the Interior Employees

920 F. Supp. 2d 154 · District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 4, 2013

“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 rights of which a reasonable … Herman, 983 F.2d 107, 110 (8th Cir. 1993) (finding a “clearly established liberty interest” for qualified-immunity purposes where trial court had issued order suspending defendant’s prison sentence, and finding it “not

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

Aceto v. Kachajian

240 F. Supp. 2d 121 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jan 24, 2003

Overview of Qualified Immunity “Qualified immunity protects public officials from section 1983 civil liability so long *124 as they ‘acted reasonably under settled law in the circumstances.’ ” Veilleux v. … Clearly Established Right Because the factual allegations — if true — show defendants violated a constitutional right, the critical question is whether the constitutional right was clearly established.

Townsend v. Jefferson County

601 F.3d 1152 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Mar 30, 2010

that the deputies violated her clearly established civil rights. … immunity because Townsend had presented evidence that the deputies violated her clearly established rights under the Fourteenth Amendment.

Jensen v. Zuern

517 N.W.2d 118 · North Dakota Court of Appeals · May 31, 1994

If the law was clearly established, the immunity defense ordinarily should fail, since a reasonably competent public official should know the law governing his conduct. … clearly established law].

Brown v. Office of State Comptroller

211 F. Supp. 3d 455 · District Court, D. Connecticut · Sep 29, 2016

Third, defendants contend that, even if Brown’s speech was protected by the First Amendment, the law at issue is not clearly established and thus they are protected under the doctrine of qualified immunity. … Courts typically frame the qualified immunity analysis by requiring the defendant to establish one of two conditions: that “(a) the defendant’s action did not violate clearly established law, or (b) it was objectively reasonable

Freeman v. Gore

483 F.3d 404 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Apr 3, 2007

denial of a public official’s motion for summary judgment based on qualified immunity.”). … Third, the deputies assert that, in any event, they are entitled to 9 qualified immunity because their actions were not objectively unreasonable in light of clearly established law.