Case law

Hamid Harris v. City of Newark (085028) (Essex County & Statewide)

Supreme Court of New Jersey · Mar 30, 2022

Qualified immunity operates to shield government officials performing discretionary functions generally from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … established.’”

Ying Jing Gan v. City of New York

996 F.2d 522 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jun 1, 1993

Such qualified immunity from suit is appropriate if a prosecutor’s conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights which a reasonable person would have known. Harlow v. … We held that the prosecutor was entitled to qualified immunity because he had no clearly established duty to protect at the time of the witness’s death in 1982. Id. at 102 .

Rosario Rivera v. Aqueduct & Sewer Authority

472 F. Supp. 2d 165 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Jan 31, 2007

Qualified Immunity Defendants argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity. … Second, these rights were clearly established at the time of the alleged putative violation. See Crawford-El v.

Knouse v. Primecare Med. of W. Va.

333 F. Supp. 3d 584 · United States District Court · Sep 24, 2018

Officers are entitled to qualified immunity under § 1983 unless (1) they violated a federal statutory or constitutional right, and (2) the unlawfulness of their conduct was "clearly established at the time." Reichle v. … The court was asked to "define the right at issue" under a qualified immunity analysis: The defendant asked the court to frame the analysis as whether it is "clearly established that a prison medical provider runs afoul of

Chesney v. City of Jackson

171 F. Supp. 3d 605 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Mar 21, 2016

“The ultimate burden of proof is on the plaintiff to show that the defendant is not entitled to qualified immunity.” Sheets, 287 F.3d at 586 . Application of the doctrine of qualified immunity entails two inquiries. … Thus, in determining whether a government official has violated a “clearly established” constitutional right under the second prong of the qualified immunity standard, a court must inquire whether “[t]he contours of the right

Robert Stinson v. Raymond Rawson

799 F.3d 833 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Aug 25, 2015

But the defendants remain protected by qualified immunity, which is lost only if Stinson presents evidence showing that they violated a clearly established constitutional right. He has not done so. … clearly established at the time of their actions.

Mocek v. City of Albuquerque

3 F. Supp. 3d 1002 · District Court, D. New Mexico · Feb 28, 2014

Clearly Established Rights in the Qualifíed Immunity Analysis. … The Supreme Court has clarified that the clearly established prong of the qualified immunity test is a very high burden for the plaintiff: “A Government official’s conduct violates clearly established law when, at the time

Dms Imaging, Inc. v. United States

123 Fed. Cl. 645 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Oct 27, 2015

“If a reasonable probability of damage can be clearly established, uncertainty as to the amount will not preclude recovery.” Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc. v. Barram, 226 F.3d 1329, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (quoting Locke v. … The frustration of purpose doctrine is clearly inapplicable here.

Computer Sciences Corp. v. Ibarra

685 F. Supp. 748 · District Court, D. Colorado · Apr 27, 1988

Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, “government officials performing discretionary functions ... are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … When the affirmative defense of qualified immunity is raised, the plaintiff has the burden of convincing the court that its federal constitutional or statutory rights were clearly established at the time of the questioned

Lowery v. County of Riley

522 F.3d 1086 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Apr 14, 2008

DISCUSSION Government officials performing discretionary functions are entitled to qualified immunity from liability for civil damages so long as “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … If so, the court must then determine whether the right asserted was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation. See id.

Giles v. Kearney

571 F.3d 318 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jul 15, 2009

right” and “the right was clearly established” at the time of the objectionable conduct. … In holding that no constitutional right was clearly established at the time of the incident and in granting qualified immunity to the officers in their individual capacities, the District Court noted Giles’ factual allegations

Duhani v. Town of Grafton

52 F. Supp. 3d 176 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Sep 26, 2014

The qualified immunity analysis requires a court to decide ‘(1) whether the facts alleged or shown by the plaintiff make out a violation of a constitutional right; and (2) if so, whether the right was “clearly established … Since Duhani has failed to establish a violation of his constitutional right, Mclnerney is entitled to qualified immunity.

Purzycki v. Town of Fairfield

44 Conn. App. 359 · Connecticut Appellate Court · Feb 25, 1997

The plaintiffs claim that the trial court improperly determined that they failed to establish the imminent harm aspect of the identifiable person-imminent harm exception to the defendants’ qualified governmental immunity. … With this standard of review in mind, we turn now to the law concerning municipal immunity. “ ‘The doctrines that determine the tort liability of municipal employees are well established.

Quartararo v. Catterson

917 F. Supp. 919 · District Court, E.D. New York · Jan 25, 1996

With respect to the three categories of defendants who now seek dismissal on the basis of qualified immunity, the plaintiff alleges the existence of two distinct types of clearly established rights: (1) a clearly-established … a clearly established federal right.

Pritchard v. Arvon

186 W. Va. 445 · West Virginia Supreme Court · Dec 12, 1991

Such employee immunity is consistent generally with the political subdivision’s qualified immunity, and the employee immunity is reasonable in scope because the Act imposes employee liability for tort damages proximately … Clearly, the Act is reasonable in furthering the purpose for which it was enacted.

Larry J. Leaf, Individually and as Personal Representative of the Estate of John P. Leaf, Deceased, Martha A. Leaf, John P. Leaf v. Ronald Shelnutt

400 F.3d 1070 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Mar 18, 2005

of one ‘clearly established’ right .... ”); see also International Action Center v. … We note that, even if we had found that the Fourth Amendment forbade the search at issue here, Deputy Shelnutt still would be entitled to qualified immunity, because it is not clearly established that such a sweep violates

Bartrug v. Rubin

986 F. Supp. 332 · District Court, E.D. Virginia · Apr 25, 1997

However, there are no facts alleged which establish that these acts are violative of a “clearly established constitutional right.” … The doctrine of qualified immunity shields public officials fi-om civil liability as long as their conduct does not “violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known

Estate of Williams v. Indiana State Police

26 F. Supp. 3d 824 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Jun 13, 2014

Qualified Immunity “[Qualified immunity is immunity from suit rather than a mere defense to liability.” Estate of Miller, ex rel. Bertram v. … Qualified immunity for the deficient plan claim.

Marquez v. Gutierrez

322 F.3d 689 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Mar 6, 2003

The qualified immunity inquiry has two parts: “(1) Was the law governing the state official’s conduct clearly established? (2) Under that law could a reasonable state official have believed his conduct was lawful?” … Accordingly, Gutierrez is entitled to qualified immunity. REVERSED.

Meyers v. Redwood City

400 F.3d 765 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Mar 10, 2005

Defendants claim that they did not violate the Plaintiffs' constitutional rights and, in the alternative, that those rights were not clearly established and Defendants have qualified immunity from suit. … B 29 Even if we thought that the officers crossed a line established by Harris , the officers are surely entitled to qualified immunity because they could not have known that they were violating the Plaintiffs'"clearly established