Case law

Carlin v. Manu

72 F. Supp. 2d 1177 · District Court, D. Oregon · Aug 19, 1999

established” one which would foreclose the defendants from qualified immunity. … “Qualified immunity is an affirmative defense; if the plaintiff proves that the right allegedly violated was clearly established, the burden shifts to the defendant official to prove that his or her conduct was reasonable

Mitchell v. Rice

954 F.2d 187 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Jan 10, 1992

On the other hand, if the law was not so clearly established as to give notice to a reasonable prison official, we must permit appellants an immunity defense and dismiss this case against them. … Because the record in this case does not adequately address all the issues necessary to determine whether prison officials violated clearly established law, we cannot grant qualified immunity at this time.

Murphy v. New York Racing Ass'n, Inc.

76 F. Supp. 2d 489 · District Court, S.D. New York · Dec 6, 1999

qualified immunity. … Clearly Established Law Having determined that qualified immunity is generally available to the Board Defendants, it remains to determine whether their assertion of it satisfies the requirements set forth by the Supreme Court

Brogdon v. City of New Rochelle

200 F. Supp. 2d 411 · District Court, S.D. New York · May 15, 2002

Furthermore, both Benge and Chiera are entitled to qualified immunity. … The Supreme Court has recently defined what it means for a law to be “clearly established” in the context of a qualified immunity defense: ‘Clearly established’ for purposes of qualified immunity means that ‘the contours

Santiago v. Fields

170 F. Supp. 2d 453 · District Court, D. Delaware · Oct 17, 2001

Qualified Immunity Defendants contend that they cannot be held liable in their individual capacities under the doctrine of qualified immunity. … Also, at the time of the events at issue, plaintiffs Eighth Amendment right against excessive force was clearly established.

Kraft v. Adams

248 Ga. App. 141 · Court of Appeals of Georgia · Jan 23, 2001

Once that is established, the burden then shifts to the plaintiff to establish that the defendant violated a clearly established statutory or constitutional right. … This requirement that plaintiff show a clearly established right is a strenuous one. . . .

Frohriep v. Flanagan

278 Mich. App. 665 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Apr 29, 2008

Lower level officers, *677 employees, and agents are extended only qualified immunity. This immunity exists when the individual is engaged in discretionary acts which are performed in good faith. … could establish the claim and justify recovery.”

Don A. Brawner v. City of Richardson, Texas, L.F. Eudy, Richardson Police Department Director, and Kenneth Yarbrough, Chief of Police

855 F.2d 187 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Aug 18, 1988

established at the time he was fired so as to preclude their asserting a claim of qualified immunity. … Qualified immunity is a defense for public officials if “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” 19 “Clearly established” means

Williams v. City of Montgomery

21 F. Supp. 2d 1360 · District Court, M.D. Alabama · Oct 16, 1998

However, the necessity for detailed pleadings is especially apparent in cases involving qualified immunity, where the court must determine whether an individual defendant’s actions violated a clearly established right. … Murphy is entitled to qualified immunity at the motion to dismiss stage if Plaintiffs complaint fails to allege a violation of a clearly established constitutional right. Santamorena v.

Showers v. Spangler

957 F. Supp. 584 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 5, 1997

of clearly established law.” … While we conclude here that Johnson is correct in so finding, we must also conclude that this was not clearly established law in April of 1993. Defendants are, therefore, entitled to qualified immunity. D.

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.

Elder v. Holloway

874 F. Supp. 278 · District Court, D. Idaho · Jan 31, 1995

The Positions Taken by the Parties In support of his motion for summary judgment, Defendant Holloway essentially contends that he is entitled to qualified immunity based on the fact that: (1) the law was not so clearly established … Thus, in reconsidering the qualified immunity issue herein in light of Alr-Azzawy and all other relevant authority, this court finds that Defendant Holloway is entitled to qualified immunity because the law was not clearly

Comfort v. Town of Pittsfield

924 F. Supp. 1219 · District Court, D. Maine · Apr 12, 1996

To overcome qualified immunity, a plaintiff must first allege the violation of a clearly established constitutional or statutory right. Id. … The qualified immunity inquiry begins, as always, with the alleged clearly established rights at issue. Here too the inquiry ends.

Dooley v. St. Louis County

187 S.W.3d 882 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Apr 4, 2006

from liability under the doctrine of qualified immunity. … “Qualified immunity protects public officials from personal liability under [Section] 1983 when their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have

Wachtler v. County Of Herkimer

35 F.3d 77 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Sep 9, 1994

Vehicle & Traffic Law Sec. 1800(a). 20 We have held that the Fourth Amendment proscription of strip-searches of misdemeanor arrestees without reasonable suspicion is clearly enough established to preclude the defense of qualified … Thus, the individual defendants involved in the strip-search are entitled to qualified immunity. 2 23 Herkimer County, however, does not have qualified immunity, Owen v.

David W. Landrum v. Al Gomez

37 F.3d 1505 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Oct 5, 1994

II 5 When qualified immunity applies, the shield from section 1983 liability for damages will be lifted only if the party's conduct violates "clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … Landrum had a clearly established constitutional right to marry, see Turner v.

McClary v. Coughlin

87 F. Supp. 2d 205 · District Court, W.D. New York · Mar 14, 2000

Qualified Immunity: The defense of qualified immunity “shields government officials from liability for damages on account of their performance of discretionary functions ‘insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly … This Court does not believe the law of qualified immunity requires the wearing of such blinders. Precise “definitional specificity” has never been the determinant for “clearly established” legal rules.

Brenes-Laroche v. Toledo Davila

682 F. Supp. 2d 179 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Jan 26, 2010

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 … In conducting our qualified immunity analysis, we take the Plaintiffs facts as true for purposes of determining whether Defendants have violated his constitutional rights and whether the right at issue was clearly established

David Gavitt v. Bruce Born

835 F.3d 623 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Sep 1, 2016

“Unless the plaintiff’s allegations state a claim of violation of clearly established law, a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal before the commencement of discovery.” Mitchell v. … To the extent due process could be deemed to include such an obligation, it is not yet a matter of clearly established law and defendants are entitled to qualified immunity.

Ratté v. Corrigan

989 F. Supp. 2d 550 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Nov 26, 2013

Hartsfield is not entitled to qualified immunity Hartsfield contends that, to the extent she is not absolutely immune, she is entitled to qualified immunity. She is mistaken. … When government officials perform discretionary functions, they are immune from suit through qualified immunity “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a