Case law

Walker v. Prieto

414 F. Supp. 2d 1148 · District Court, S.D. Florida · Feb 3, 2006

Qualified immunity offers complete protection for government officials sued in their individual capacities if their conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … “If no constitutional right would have been violated were the allegations established, there is no necessity for further inquiries concerning qualified immunity.”

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.

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.”

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

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.’

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

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,

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.

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

Teresa Garcia, a Minor, by Her Next Friends Max and Sandra Garcia v. Theresa Miera, J.D. Sanchez, Edward Leyba, Judi Mestas, and Felix Duran

817 F.2d 650 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Apr 28, 1987

. § 1983 by qualified immunity. … Determination of qualified immunity is now to be based “on the objective reasonableness of an official’s conduct, as measured by reference to clearly established law.” Harlow, 457 U.S. at 818 , 102 S.Ct. at 2738 .

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.