Case law

Starlight Sugar, Inc. v. Soto

253 F.3d 137 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Jun 11, 2001

Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (1981), the district court identified a two-part test for determining whether an official is entitled to qualified immunity: (1) whether the law was clearly established at the time the action was … When determining whether a constitutional right is clearly established for purposes of qualified immunity, state,4 as well as federal, decisions can be considered. See Cinelli v.

Hudson v. Town of East Montpelier

161 Vt. 168 · Supreme Court of Vermont · Nov 29, 1993

Defendants first argue that Parker’s acts were discretionary in nature and thus immune under the doctrine of qualified official immunity. … Bd., 125 Vt. 366, 369, 216 A.2d 44, 46 (1965) (distinction “is not clearly defined,” basis of distinction “is difficult to state,” and no established rule exists for determination of what belongs to which class); Marshall

Curtis Henderson v. Michael P. Lane and J. Gallassi, Curtis Henderson v. Michael P. Lane and J. Gallassi

979 F.2d 466 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Aug 13, 1992

An official is entitled to qualified immunity when his actions do not violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Williams v. … Thus, there is no “clearly established” right to more than one hour of exercise per week, and the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity on this claim.

Alicia T. v. County of Los Angeles

222 Cal. App. 3d 869 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 23, 1990

The County insists the law clearly provides absolute immunity for the conduct in issue here. “Qualified or ‘good faith’ immunity is an affirmative defense that must be pleaded by a defendant official. [Citation.]” … “Qualified immunity shields only that conduct not violative of clearly established constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.

Reynolds v. Smythe

418 F. Supp. 2d 724 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 9, 2006

The Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has enunciated the qualified immunity inquiry as follows: “First, we must determine whether the defendants violated ‘clearly established’ rights. … Saucier instructs lower courts to examine whether a constitutional right was clearly established in the second-prong of a two-prong qualified immunity inquiry, whereas Harvey examines whether defendants violated a clearly

Cerrone v. Cahill

84 F. Supp. 2d 330 · District Court, N.D. New York · Jan 28, 2000

Standard for Qualified Immunity The doctrine of qualified immunity shields government officials from suit for acts undertaken in the course of their duties if “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … When a right is clearly established, qualified immunity also attaches “insofar as it was objectively reasonable to believe that [the government agent’s] acts did not violate these rights.” Calamia v.

Michael Segaline v. State Of Wa, Dept. Of L & I

Court of Appeals of Washington · Jul 17, 2017

If Alan Croft has qualified immunity as to the trespass notice he is entitled to qualified immunity for the actions that flowed from it. ... Absent a clearly established right, Mr. … The doctrine of qualified immunity shields government officials from civil liability and money damages so long as "'their conduct does not violate clearly established ...

Lyons v. City of Xenia

90 F. App'x 835 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jan 27, 2004

Because we conclude as a matter of law that Officer Keith did not violate any clearly-established constitutional rights, we reverse the district court’s judgment denying her qualified immunity. … defendant did acts that violated clearly established rights.”

Williams v. Bitner

285 F. Supp. 2d 593 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 30, 2003

Defendants also claim entitlement to qualified immunity on the ground that the violation was not so “clearly established” that prison officials should be expected to avoid it. … Long, 72 F.3d 70, 73-74 (8th Cir.1995) (finding that Muslim inmates had a clearly established right to refrain from handling pork for purposes of a qualified immunity analysis); Kenner v.

Kubany v. School Board of Pinellas County

839 F. Supp. 1544 · District Court, M.D. Florida · Nov 20, 1993

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY. … Unless the state of the law was so well established that a reasonable official should have been on notice that his or her chai-' lenged conduct was unlawful, that official is entitled to qualified immunity. -.Id.

Buck v. City of Albuquerque

549 F.3d 1269 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Dec 9, 2008

entitlement to qualified immunity. … Third, he urges that, even if the officers did not have probable cause to arrest, he is protected by qualified immunity’s second prong, because the right of the Arrested Plaintiffs was not clearly established.

Doherty v. Rutgers School of Law-Newark

651 F.2d 893 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jun 16, 1981

The affidavits clearly show that plaintiff would not have been admitted to any of the law schools even if no minority group members had been admitted. … He clearly was qualified for admission and the trial court so found. Bakke v. Regents of the University of California, slip op. at 5, No. 31287 (Calif.Super.Ct.

Wagner v. Northern Berks Regional Police

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jul 17, 2020

C Equally important, Horner is entitled to qualified immunity because the law is not clearly established that an officer lacks probable cause where the affirmative defenses of compulsory joinder or Double Jeopardy … Does, 779 F.3d 84, 96 (2d Cir. 2015) (granting qualified immunity to officers because if a “defense rests on . . . a legal theory that is not so clearly established . . . it cannot be said that any reasonable officer would

Navajo Housing Authority v. Johns

11 Am. Tribal Law 31 · Navajo Nation Supreme Court · Sep 10, 2012

, as Dana clearly intended. … However, the provision was, without doubt, part of the larger statutory scheme that established NHA as a public body.

Brian Dias William Mason, Sr. v. Jose Elique Michael Murray University and Community College System of Nevada University of Nevada, Las Vegas

436 F.3d 1125 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Feb 6, 2006

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY Appellants assert Murray and Elique (the “Supervisors”) violated their clearly established constitutional rights by initiating an investigation without giving Appellants proper notice under Nev.Rev. … The district court applied the doctrine of qualified immunity and dismissed these claims. 5 To determine whether summary judgment on qualified immunity was proper, we must first evaluate whether, taking the facts in the light

Michael Thomas Wilson v. Barry A. Kittoe, and Anthony S. Tokach

337 F.3d 392 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Jul 22, 2003

Under the second prong of our qualified immunity analysis, we must determine whether the right alleged to have been violated was a “clearly established ... right[ ] of which a reasonable person would have known.” … For the foregoing reasons, Wilson has alleged the violation of a clearly established Fourth Amendment right. Accordingly, the district court’s denial of qualified immunity is affirmed. AFFIRMED 1 .

Harold Fish v. Tim Brown

838 F.3d 1153 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Oct 3, 2016

government official; so, qualified immunity applies. … Sauls, 206 F.3d 1156, 1165 (11th Cir. 2000) (“[A] police officer is entitled to qualified immunity if a reasonable police officer could have believed his or her actions were lawful in light of clearly established law and

Estate of Rudy Escob v. Brian Marti

702 F.3d 388 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Dec 13, 2012

When analyzing a qualified immunity defense, courts consider whether the facts alleged demonstrate a constitu- tional violation, and whether the constitutional right was clearly established. Pearson v. … The district court granted judgment as a matter of law on qualified immunity grounds to the defendant com- manders on the second prong, finding that Escobedo did not have a clearly established constitutional right to be free

Latetia Nunley v. Blayne Newton

117 F.4th 1059 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Sep 25, 2024

at issue was clearly established at the time of defendant’s alleged misconduct.” … “[T]o determine whether [Newton] violated clearly established law, we need to know what happened.

DePace v. Flaherty

183 F. Supp. 2d 633 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jan 28, 2002

Creighton, to say that the contours of a right must be clearly established “is not to say that an official action is protected by qualified immunity unless the very action in question has previously been held unlawful.” 31 … Flaherty still would be entitled to qualified immunity, despite the fact that the alleged conduct violated clearly established law, if it was objectively reasonable for her to believe that her actions did not violate DePace