Case law

Matthews Ex Rel. Matthews v. Armitage

36 F. Supp. 2d 121 · District Court, N.D. New York · Jan 25, 1999

Qualified Immunity Defendants also seek judgment as a matter of law on the ground of qualified immunity. … A public official is entitled to qualified immunity when, at the time the officer was acting, the right in question was not clearly established or, even if the right was established, it was not objectively reasonable for

Tunnell v. Office of Public Defender

583 F. Supp. 762 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 23, 1984

If the law was not clearly established, the defendant will prevail on summary judgment on the basis of the qualified immunity defense, id. at 818, 102 S.Ct. 2739 , unless the plaintiff claims that the official actually knew … If, on the other hand, the applicable law was clearly established, then, as the Court noted in Harlow , it should have been known to “a reasonably competent public official,” and the qualified immunity defense “should ordinarily

Stanley v. Muzio

578 F. Supp. 2d 443 · District Court, D. Connecticut · Sep 26, 2008

Qualified Immunity The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials from liability for damages caused by the performance of discretionary official functions if their conduct does not violate a clearly established … If the court finds a potential violation, it next must determine whether, considering the facts of the case before it, that right was clearly established at the time of the incident. See Saucier v.

SAN GERÓNIMO CARIBE PROJECT, INC. v. Vila

663 F. Supp. 2d 54 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Sep 30, 2009

Qualified immunity is applicable unless the official’s conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right. Pearson v. Callahan, — U.S. —, 129 S.Ct. 808, 815-816 , 172 L.Ed.2d 565 (2009)(citing Anderson v. … As aforementioned, when determining qualified immunity, the Court may choose to first assess whether the constitutional right asserted by the Plaintiff was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation.

Safeguard Mutual Insurance v. Miller

456 F. Supp. 682 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 13, 1978

On the other hand, conduct falling within the investigative and administrative functions of these defendants is subject to a qualified immunity and they must establish their good faith in order to escape liability. … As such, he is entitled only to the qualified immunity of other executive officials, and he must establish his good faith to avoid liability. Again, this is an issue best resolved at trial.

Anne Powers v. John T. Lightner, D/B/A Lightner Auto Sales, Third-Party Plaintiff v. Barry Jones and Bruce White, Third-Party

820 F.2d 818 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Aug 3, 1987

I consider here only the issue of qualified immunity. I. … Qualified immunity shields government officials “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known

Bloom v. Toliver

133 F. Supp. 3d 1314 · District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · Sep 22, 2015

They are also entitled to qualified immunity because Bloom has not satisfied the “clearly established law” prong, as'required to defeat these defendants’ assertion of qualified immunity. … Hammett does not argue the “clearly established law” prong of the qualified immunity defense.

Sparks v. Kim

701 So. 2d 1113 · Mississippi Supreme Court · Nov 13, 1997

The immunity set forth in Hudson/Marshall is not absolute, but only qualified. … Panola County Bd. of Educ., 645 So.2d 883, 890-92 (Miss. 1994) (noting that Remedies Clause is not abrogated by immunities that were well established at time of Clause's adoption); Robinson v.

Naccarato v. Oliver

882 F. Supp. 297 · District Court, E.D. New York · Apr 19, 1995

Further, even when the right in question was clearly established at the time of the alleged unlawful conduct, an official is still entitled to immunity were it objectively reasonable for him to believe the conduct lawful. … If an officer kicked a handcuffed arrestee in the back, that act would violate a clearly established constitutional right and this Court would not grant immunity from liability for such conduct.

Dudek v. Nassau County Sheriff's Department

991 F. Supp. 2d 402 · District Court, E.D. New York · Nov 19, 2013

The standard for qualified immunity is "objective,” and not "subjective,” reasonableness, "as measured by reference to clearly established law” about which a "reasonably competent public official should know.” … for qualified immunity purposes. .

Kathleen A. Walsh v. Cuyahoga County, and Terry Allan

424 F.3d 510 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Sep 21, 2005

Allan was not entitled to qualified immunity because Ms. Walsh’s right to a pre-termination hearing was clearly established by Cleveland Board of Education v. … Ill Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, “government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established

McKinney ex rel. McKinney v. DeKalb County

997 F.2d 1440 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 17, 1993

The issue on this appeal of a denial of summary judgment based on qualified immunity is a purely legal one: first, whether there was a clearly established constitutional right, and second, whether, viewed most favorably to … Under the test for qualified immunity, Officer Nelsen could avoid liability for discretionary functions if his alleged conduct did not violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable

Garcia v. Orta

47 F.4th 343 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Aug 25, 2022

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity protects public officials acting in their individual capacity from lawsuits and liability for damages under Section 1983 unless their conduct violates a clearly established … To overcome an asserted qualified immunity defense, the plaintiff must show “sufficient facts to ‘make out a violation of a constitutional right’” and “‘the right at issue was “clearly established” at the time of

Schaefer v. Whitted

121 F. Supp. 3d 701 · District Court, W.D. Texas · Aug 5, 2015

“Qualified immunity protects public officials from suit unless their conduct violates a clearly established constitutional right.” Brumfield v. … However, to surmount qualified immunity, Plaintiff has the burden of demonstrating the Second Amendment right Officer Whitted is alleged to have violated is “clearly established” in the more “particularized sense,” such that

Lavoy Steed v. Missouri State Highway Patrol

2 F.4th 767 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jun 25, 2021

Qualified immunity shields a defendant from personal liability if his or her conduct does not violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Quraishi v. … “[T]he issue for immunity purposes is not probable cause in fact but arguable probable cause, that is, whether the officer should have known that the arrest violated plaintiff’s clearly established right.” Schaffer v.

Morris v. Wallace Community College-Selma

125 F. Supp. 2d 1315 · District Court, S.D. Alabama · Jan 8, 2001

Qualified Immunity. … “In this circuit, the law can be 'clearly established’ for qualified immunity purposes only by decisions of the U.S.

Fenner v. Suthers

194 F. Supp. 2d 1146 · District Court, D. Colorado · Apr 2, 2002

to exist, has not heretofore been clearly established. … Defendants argue that the case must still be dismissed, because they are entitled to qualified immunity for another reason: there is simply no clearly established constitutional right to treatment for hepatitis C.

Carew v. Centracchio

17 F. Supp. 2d 56 · District Court, D. Rhode Island · Mar 4, 1998

Such officials have qualified immunity if they can prove either of the following: “the federal law allegedly violated was not clearly established at the time of the alleged violation, or ... at summary judgment, there is … no genuine dispute of material fact that would prevent a finding that the defendants’ actions, with regard to applying or following such clearly established law, were objectively *59 reasonable.”

Raymond D. Jackson v. Duncan A. McIntosh David Victorino

90 F.3d 330 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jul 18, 1996

The doctors moved for summary judgment on the ground of qualified immunity. The district court denied the motion. The doctors appeal. … ANALYSIS The doctors contend that they are entitled to qualified immunity because there was no clearly established law requiring *332 them to provide a kidney transplant to a prisoner on dialysis.

Eggleton v. Gluch

717 F. Supp. 1230 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Jul 13, 1989

I conclude that qualified immunity does not apply in either instance because the law was clearly defined in each of these areas. … action is a violation) violates a clearly established right.