Case law

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.

Keller v. Elyea

496 F. App'x 665 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Nov 21, 2012

Elyea was entitled to qualified immunity. He argues that he had a clearly established constitutional right to have his medical conditions addressed, and that his letters sufficed to establish Dr. … The district court indeed viewed this issue through too narrow a lens: there need not be a case “on all fours,” with identical facts, in order for a constitutional right to be clearly established for the purposes of qualified

Zarate-Martinez v. Echemendia

299 Ga. 301 · Supreme Court of Georgia · Jul 5, 2016

(d) Special Privileges and Immunities: Pursuant to Ga. Const. of 1983 Art. I, § I, Par. … Jacobi was not qualified under the statute. This leaves only the two affidavits filed by Dr.

Thompson v. Penna. Parole Board Member Jefferson

544 F. Supp. 173 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 4, 1982

The case was remanded to this court for further factual development to determine whether Jefferson was entitled to absolute or qualified immunity and, if Jefferson was entitled to qualified immunity, whether he could satisfy … The Court held that governmental officials are entitled to immunity so long as they “do not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”

Karchefske v. Department of Mental Health

143 Mich. App. 1 · Michigan Court of Appeals · May 20, 1985

S Ct 855 ; 55 L Ed 2d 24 (1978) (qualified immunity for *6 prison officials and officers), Scheuer v Rhodes, 416 US 232 ; 94 S Ct 1683 ; 40 L Ed 2d 90 (1974) (qualified immunity for governor and other executive officers) … Clearly, the sovereign immunity of the states was well established at common law at the time that § 1983 was enacted.

Merisier v. Ellender

197 F. Supp. 3d 310 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jul 6, 2016

As the First Circuit recently explained: The rules for granting qualified immunity are well established. … “The doctrine of qualified immunity shields officials from civil liability so long as their conduct ‘does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’

Salvador Reza v. Russell Pearce

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Nov 19, 2015

PEARCE 3 Senator Pearce violated plaintiff’s clearly established First Amendment rights and that the district court erred by granting him qualified immunity on summary judgment. … To overcome Senator Pearce’s qualified immunity defense, Reza must establish both that Senator Pearce violated his First Amendment rights, and that this violation was of a “clearly established statutory or constitutional

Gardner v. Hill

195 F. Supp. 2d 832 · District Court, E.D. Texas · Dec 18, 2001

Deputy Havard defends by stating qualified immunity bars all these claims brought against him by the plaintiff. A. Federal Qualified Immunity Standard Qualified immunity “reconciled] two competing interests. … The analysis of a qualified immunity claim requires the court: (1) to determine whether the plaintiff has alleged a violation of a clearly established constitutional right and (2) if so, then the court must decide if the

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.

William J. Benson v. William J. Scott and Herbert Caplan

734 F.2d 1181 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jul 2, 1984

the state, violated clearly established procedures of which a reasonable person should have been aware. … As we noted above, Harlow dictates that a claim of qualified immunity by an executive official must be sustained if the official’s conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which

Connecticut Criminal Defense Lawyers Ass'n v. Forst

88 F.3d 111 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jul 3, 1996

On appeal, defendants contend that they are entitled to qualified immunity principally because at the pertinent times it was not clearly established that tape-recording telephone calls, without ever listening to them, violated … Summary judgment dismissing a claim on the basis of the defendants’ qualified-immunity defense may thus be granted if the court finds that the asserted rights were not clearly established, or if the evidence is such that,

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

Carr v. Tatangelo

338 F.3d 1259 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jul 23, 2003

Under qualified immunity, “government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … and, if so, whether they had “fair warning” under clearly established law that their conduct was unconstitutional.

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

Noland v. Wheatley

835 F. Supp. 476 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Oct 22, 1993

Qualified immunity provides a defense to conduct which “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” 457 U.S. at 818 , 102 S.Ct. at 2738 . … The defendants claim entitlement to qualified immunity, contending that the ADA was not clearly established law during the time in which the conduct that Mr. Noland alleges occurred.

Williams v. Greifinger

918 F. Supp. 91 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jan 30, 1996

Therefore, defendant is entitled to qualified immunity from civil damages. III. … That is a separate issue which goes to qualified immunity, and it is examined below. See Davis v.

Anthony Coons, Sr. v. Steven F. Casabella

284 F.3d 437 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Mar 25, 2002

Qualified Immunity We review de novo the district court’s denial of summary judgment on the ground of qualified immunity. Cerrone v. Brown, 246 F.3d 194, 198 (2d Cir.2001). … A police officer is entitled to qualified immunity in making arrests where “(1) his conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known, or (2) it

Peterson v. Heymes

277 F. Supp. 3d 913 · District Court, W.D. Michigan · Sep 29, 2017

Qualified Immunity MSP Defendants argue they are entitled to qualified immunity. … Once the qualified immunity defense is raised, the plaintiff bears the burden of demonstrating both that the challenged conduct violates a constitutional or statutory right and that the right was so clearly established at

Aldarondo-Lugo v. Municipality of Toa Baja

329 F. Supp. 2d 221 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Aug 2, 2004

Qualiñed Immunity Inquiry The qualified immunity doctrine protects civil servants from suit and liability arising from the performance of their duties “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established ... constitutional … The Court begins with the first prong of the qualified immunity test: whether Plaintiffs can establish that a particular defendant violated their constitutional rights.

Morabito ex rel. Estate of Morabito v. Holmes

628 F. App'x 353 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Oct 7, 2015

We have “jurisdiction over the legal question of qualified immunity, i.e., whether a given set of facts violates clearly established law.” Harris v. City of Circleville, 583 F.3d 356, 364 (6th Cir.2009) (citing Kirby v. … The qualified immunity inquiry for the denial of medical care similarly looks to see whether there was a violation of clearly established constitutional rights.