Case law

Estate of Holmes v. Somers

387 F. Supp. 3d 1233 · District Court, D. Kansas · Apr 17, 2019

Qualified immunity "shields public officials ... from damages actions unless their conduct was unreasonable in light of clearly established law." Gann v. … When the defense of qualified immunity is asserted, a plaintiff must show: "(1) that the defendant's actions violated a federal constitutional or statutory right, and, if so, (2) that the right was clearly established at

Lewis v. Roosevelt Island Operating Corp.

246 F. Supp. 3d 979 · District Court, S.D. New York · Mar 28, 2017

Public officials sued in their individual capacity are entitled to qualified immunity if “(1) a constitutional right was [not] violated or (2) the right was not clearly established [at the time of the violation].” … Rather, Defendants’ qualified immunity argument is based on the contention that the Complaint does not. include facts establishing the underlying constitutional violations, which the Court has rejected. VI.

Wesley Taylor v. Richard K. Bowers, Carl Doerhoff, Kent Grewe, Maryland Butts, Helen Farr, Loren Stout

966 F.2d 417 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jul 31, 1992

The case law that governs whether the defendants are entitled to a qualified immunity defense is well established. See, e.g., Givens, 900 F.2d at 1231 . … When the plaintiff fails to allege a violation of clearly established law, “a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal before the commencement of discovery.”

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).

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

Robert Eugene Rogers v. Officer Kevin Powell Officer Jeffrey Stine, A/K/A Stiney Officer Timothy Eiler Officer James Edwards

120 F.3d 446 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Aug 11, 1997

Qualified Immunity A. … immunity protects “government officials performing discretionary functions ... from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a

Comsys Incorporated v. Frank Pacetti

893 F.3d 468 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jun 20, 2018

Clearly established law does not tell us what expectation of privacy a contractor has in such a situation, which means that the appellants are entitled to qualified immunity. … Qualified immunity protects public employees who do not violate clearly established law.

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.

Rita F. Marsh, Cross-Appellee v. Dorothy Arn, Delores Furrow, Cross-Appellant

937 F.2d 1056 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Sep 23, 1991

The scope of qualified immunity is well stated by the Supreme Court in Harlow v. … Whether an official may prevail in his qualified immunity defense depends upon the ‘objective reasonableness of [his] conduct as measured by reference to clearly established law.’ ”); Ohio Civil Service Employees Ass’n v.

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.

Allen v. DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFF. OF PHILADELPHIA

644 F. Supp. 2d 600 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 3, 2009

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY Qualified immunity is “ ‘an entitlement not to stand trial or face the other burdens of litigation.’ ” Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 , 200, 121 S.Ct. 2151 , 150 L.Ed.2d 272 (2001) (quoting Mitchell v. … In considering the second prong of the Saucier test, the Third Circuit clarified that “[a] right is clearly established for the purposes of qualified immunity when its contours are ‘sufficiently clear that a reasonable official

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.

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.

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

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

Ayers v. Ryan

152 F.3d 77 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jul 28, 1998

Qualified immunity shields government officials from liability for damages resulting from the performance of discretionary' official functions if their conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … The district court concluded that Ryan was entitled to qualified immunity because Ayers could not “demonstrate that Ryan’s refusal to call certain witnesses was a clearly established violation of the Due Process Clause.”

Schatz Family v. Lynne Geirer

346 F.3d 1157 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Oct 16, 2003

-3-  The district court announced the proper standard for addressing qualified immunity at the Rule 12(b)(6) stage – whether immunity is established on the face of the … However, we take this opportunity to suggest that district courts clearly address the qualified immunity issue."), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 946 (1993).

Leghart Ex Rel. Leghart v. Hauk

25 F. Supp. 2d 748 · District Court, W.D. Texas · Nov 23, 1998

As such, “[qualified immunity protects a police officer from liability if a reasonable competent law enforcement officer would not have known that his actions violated clearly established law.” Harper v. … “The first step is to determine whether the plaintiff has alleged a violation of a clearly established constitutional right.” Id.

Bernstein v. Lopez

321 F.3d 903 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Mar 4, 2003

We hold that no further facts need to be determined and that as a matter of law the defendants are protected by qualified immunity because the plaintiffs have no clearly established right to continue in their administrative … This property interest, they maintain, was “clearly established.”