Case law

Adams v. City of Shreveport

269 F. Supp. 3d 743 · District Court, W.D. Louisiana · Aug 28, 2017

A defendant who can validly raise a qualified immunity defense will enjoy its protection so long as the allegedly violated constitutional right was not clearly established at the time of the violation. See id. … This right is a clearly established right for the purposes of a qualified immunity analysis. See id.

Bischoff v. Calhoun County Prosecutor

173 Mich. App. 802 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Dec 20, 1988

which is essentially investigative or administrative and therefore entitled to only the protection of the qualified immunity. … Qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions from civil liability insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable

Doe v. Methacton School District

880 F. Supp. 380 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 16, 1995

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY The individual Methacton Defendants assert that they are entitled to qualified immunity for all constitutional claims against them. The burden to show immunity is on the defendant. … The test for whether qualified immunity should be applied is whether: (1) government officials (2) performed discretionary functions (3) that did not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights (4) of which

Yoder, J. v. McCarthy Const., Inc

291 A.3d 1 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 31, 2023

Whether [JNOV] is required because [McCarthy] is clearly entitled to statutory[-]employer immunity? 2. … McCarthy’s Brief at 9.11 First Issue In McCarthy’s first issue, it asserts that JNOV is required because it is clearly entitled to statutory-employer immunity. Id. at 20.

Kesterson v. Kent State Univ.

345 F. Supp. 3d 855 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Nov 5, 2018

The qualified immunity doctrine shields government officials performing discretionary actions from civil damages liability if their actions did not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a … Nonetheless, Linder is still entitled to qualified immunity for this claim if the constitutional rights implicated were not clearly established.

Peters v. City of Buffalo

848 F. Supp. 2d 378 · District Court, W.D. New York · Jan 30, 2012

Qualified Immunity Having found that Clark and Marusak are not entitled to absolute immunity, dismissal may nevertheless be proper if their actions are entitled to qualified immunity. … Officials are protected from § 1983 liability by qualified immunity if their actions (1) did not violate clearly established law or (2) were objectively reasonable. See Warren v. Keane, 196 F.3d 330 , 332 (2d Cir.1999).

Doe Ex Rel. Johnson v. South Carolina Department of Social Services

597 F.3d 163 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Mar 5, 2010

Qualified immunity from § 1983 claims “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 … of clearly established law.”); Swanson v.

Hanas v. Inner City Christian Outreach, Inc.

542 F. Supp. 2d 683 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Feb 29, 2008

’s constitutional rights were clearly established. … Hanas’s right under the Establishment Clause to be free from state coercion was clearly established since 2001. See Inouye v.

Wesby v. District of Columbia

765 F.3d 13 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Sep 2, 2014

“An officer is entitled to qualified immunity, despite having engaged in constitutionally deficient conduct, if, in doing so, she did not violate ‘clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … Because the common-law privilege Defendants invoke overlaps with but is harder to establish than qualified immunity, the Defendants’ argument on that score “fails for essentially the same reasons already set forth.”

Badder v. Schmidt

50 F. Supp. 3d 902 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Oct 7, 2014

with qualified immunity. … “Qualified immunity is applicable unless the official’s conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right.” Pearson, 555 U.S. at 232 , 129 S.Ct. at 816 .

Cannon v. Polk County/Polk County Sheriff

68 F. Supp. 3d 1267 · District Court, D. Oregon · Dec 18, 2014

Second, the court must determine whether the right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation. Id. … Even if the violated right was clearly established at the time of the violation, the defendant is entitled to qualified immunity if his mistake as to what the law requires is reasonable. Id. at 205, 121 S.Ct. 2151 .

El-Ghazzawy v. Berthiaume

708 F. Supp. 2d 874 · District Court, D. Minnesota · Apr 16, 2010

Berthiaume is still entitled to qualified immunity, in the face of a constitutional violation, if the constitutional right *885 at issue was not “clearly established” at the time the violation occurred. … Therefore, Berthiaume has not met her burden in establishing her right to qualified immunity and El-Ghazzawy’s Fourth-Amendment claim will stand. II.

Morales v. Weiss

709 F. App'x 95 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jan 24, 2018

Defendants “are entitled to qualified immunity if they can establish either that (1) a constitutional right was not violated or (2) the right was not clearly established.” Royal Crown Day Care LLC v. … Fitzsimmons, 509 U.S. 259, 273 , 113 S.Ct. 2606 , 125 L.Ed.2d 209 (1993); and Weiss was entitled to qualified immunity for contacting ICE because that act did not violate any clearly established constitutional or statutory

Bozeman v. Orum

199 F. Supp. 2d 1216 · District Court, M.D. Alabama · Apr 12, 2002

To resolve the qualified-immunity question, therefore, a determination as to whether this incident implicates a clearly established constitutional right must be made. … Without clearly established law to guide the officer’s actions, qualified immunity applies. Summary judgment is due on the fourth-amendment excessive-force claim against the officers. 3.

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

Cora Arrington v. William McDonald Robert Nill

808 F.2d 466 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Dec 30, 1986

Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 , 102 S.Ct. 2727 , 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982), a defendant may establish an entitlement to qualified immunity by “proving either that the law was not clearly established at the time of plaintiff’s alleged … injury, or, if the law was clearly established, that he neither knew or should have known of the relevant standard due to extraordinary circumstances.”

McKenzie v. Thompson

240 F. Supp. 3d 1304 · District Court, N.D. Georgia · Feb 22, 2017

In this case, Defendant asserts that he is entitled to qualified immunity. … Generally, government officials have qualified immunity “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would

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.

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.

Hudson v. Hudson

475 F.3d 741 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jan 26, 2007

Page 3 liability “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. … Katz, 533 U.S. 194, 200 (2001), to decide first whether the defendant’s conduct violated a federal right held by the plaintiff, id., and second whether that right was clearly established at the time of the violation.