Case law

Smith v. Wolfe

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 6, 2020

State officials - 18 - have qualified immunity from claims for monetary relief if their conduct “does not violate a clearly established statutory or constitutional right of which a reasonable … As to the question of whether the right at issue was clearly established when the Defendants’ conduct took place, courts should not “define clearly established law at a high level of generality.” Id. at 716.

Holloway v. Lamar County

180 F. Supp. 3d 467 · District Court, S.D. Mississippi · Apr 8, 2016

“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 person … Therefore, because a reasonable officer would have known that tasing Plaintiff was objectively unreasonable under clearly established law, the Court does not find that Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity and will

Dominguez v. Figueroa Sancha

373 F. Supp. 3d 333 · United States District Court · Feb 7, 2019

Qualified Immunity [A] public actor's liability under [ § ] 1983 is not absolute: the doctrine of qualified immunity provides a safe harbor for a wide range of mistaken judgments. *348 Cox v. … Predictably, they now move for summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds, so the court will give it a second go. The qualified immunity inquiry "entails a two-step pavane." Alfano v.

Eldredge v. TOWN OF FALMOUTH, MA

662 F.3d 100 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Nov 22, 2011

Qualified Immunity The doctrine of qualified immunity is designed to "balance[] two important interests – the need to hold public officials accountable when they exercise power irresponsibly and … Because a finding that a right was not "clearly established" under the second prong of the analysis is sufficient to warrant a grant of qualified immunity, see id. at 236-37, discussion of the first prong will in some

United States v. Jacob De La Fuente

353 F.3d 766 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Dec 29, 2003

LAHD’s tests established that the white powder in De La Fuente’s letters was not anthrax. … establish that the defendant’s actual offense qualifies as a crime of violence.

Julie Peffer v. Mike Stephens

880 F.3d 256 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jan 17, 2018

That is because we are convinced that there was no clearly established constitutional violation and therefore qualified immunity applies. … Because there was no constitutional violation, we need not address the second step of the qualified-immunity analysis, whether the law was clearly established.

Davis v. DiPino

99 Md. App. 282 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Feb 23, 1994

Was Detective DiPino entitled to qualified immunity in the claim brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 ? B. … The federal constitutional right that the plaintiff claims has been violated must have been “clearly established” at the time of the alleged violation.

Kerman v. City of New York

261 F.3d 229 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jul 26, 2001

Qualified immunity will attach to an officer’s decision to enter a dwelling in response to perceived exigent circumstances so long as the “conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of … Notwithstanding these earlier indications of the law’s likely evolution, we cannot say that for qualified immunity purposes the current law governing the war-rantless entry in this case was clearly established by October

Tearpock-Martini v. Borough

98 F. Supp. 3d 697 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 20, 2015

For a qualified immunity analysis, therefore, the court must examine: 1) whether the officials violated a constitutional right and 2) whether that right was clearly established at the time. Wright v. … Accordingly, we cannot find that the right was clearly established at the time and qualified immunity applies to the individual defendants.

Tennell v. Telthorster

84 S.W.3d 1 · Court of Appeals of Texas · Oct 12, 2000

In this appeal from a summary judgment on the affirmative defense of qualified immunity, we are asked to review whether appellee, Officer Mark Andrew Telthorster, established as a matter of law that he acted in good faith … In one point of error, the appellant argues the appellee is not entitled to summary judgment based on qualified immunity because he failed to establish as a matter of law that he acted in good faith during the appellant’s

Bellotte v. Edwards

629 F.3d 415 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Jan 11, 2011

Kennedy, 349 F.3d 731, 743 (4th Cir.2003), we affirm the district court’s holding that this no-knock entry violated the Bellottes’ clearly established constitutional rights and does not warrant an award of qualified immunity … Because we have jurisdiction over the denial of a claim for qualified immunity on summary judgment only “to the extent that the official maintains that the official’s conduct did not violate clearly established law,” Winfield

Daniel Tanner v. Anita Phillips

669 F. App'x 444 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Oct 4, 2016

established right. 2 14-35983 See Pearson v. … Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 232 (2009) (defendant is entitled to qualified immunity unless the conduct at issue violated a clearly established constitutional right).

Fera v. City of Albany

568 F. Supp. 2d 248 · District Court, N.D. New York · Jul 30, 2008

“Qualified immunity is an affirmative defense that shields government officials from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a … violated were not clearly established.”

Michael Hogan v. James Carter

85 F.3d 1113 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Jun 4, 1996

It is well established that government officials are protected by the doctrine of qualified immunity not only from damage liability but from suit, “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or … to qualified immunity.

Doe v. Groody

361 F.3d 232 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Mar 19, 2004

The four Task Force officers appeal the denial of summary judgment based on qualified immunity. II. … But the immunity is forfeited if an officer’s conduct violates “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Wilson v.

Waste Recovery Cooperative of Minnesota v. County of Hennepin

504 N.W.2d 220 · Court of Appeals of Minnesota · Jul 27, 1993

Appellants first contend that they are immune from suit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1988) under the doctrine of qualified immunity. We agree. … Consequently, under the undisputed facts of this case respondents did not have a clearly established right to procedural due process. B.

Glen Delaney v. George Detella, Glenn Malone, Christopher Hughes, Eugene McAdory Clarence Wright, Donald Burns, and David Walker

256 F.3d 679 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jul 9, 2001

Having found that Delaney has alleged a constitutional violation, we consider whether the right he asserts was clearly established prior to the spring of 1996. “ ‘[C]learly established’ for purposes of qualified immunity … On this record, Judge Coar was right to deny the qualified immunity plea of all defendants.

Brawley v. Punt

186 F. Supp. 3d 1102 · District Court, D. Montana · May 11, 2016

On the other hand, because the law may not be clearly established, Officer Punt could be entitled to qualified immunity as a mat *1109 ter of law. The constitutional question is addressed first below. See Plumhoff v. … to qualified immunity.

Baxter ex rel. Baxter v. Vigo County School Corp.

26 F.3d 728 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jun 14, 1994

By now, it is well established that certain government officials enjoy a qualified immunity from suit. … To determine the applicability of qualified immunity, the defendants’ actions must be compared to what a reasonable official would believe was required in light of the clearly established legal rules.... Casteel v.

McCall Ex Rel. Odom v. Department of Human Resources

176 F. Supp. 2d 1355 · District Court, M.D. Georgia · Nov 29, 2001

their conduct violates no ‘clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’ ” Lassiter v. … “For the law to be clearly established to the point that qualified immunity does not apply, the law must have earlier been developed in such a concrete and factually defined context to make it obvious to all reasonable government