Case law

Marshall v. Columbia Lea Regional Hospital

474 F.3d 733 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jan 9, 2007

Nevertheless, the officers contend the district court erred in denying their post-verdict motion for judgment as a matter of law based on qualified immunity because no clearly established law precluded the test. … of which the plaintiff complains violated clearly established law.”

Houston v. Tucker

137 F. Supp. 2d 1326 · District Court, N.D. Georgia · Jun 1, 2000

the defendant violated clearly established law. … To overcome qualified immunity, the plaintiffs must show that: (1) the defendant violated a federal constitutional right; and (2) the right was clearly established at the time of the violation. See Santamorena v.

Walker v. Schult

717 F.3d 119 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · May 23, 2013

was "clearly established" at the time of the challenged conduct. … If an official's conduct did not violate a clearly established constitutional right, or if the official reasonably believed that his conduct did not violate such a right, then he is protected by qualified immunity.

Atherton v. District of Columbia Office of the Mayor

706 F.3d 512 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Feb 8, 2013

of the qualified immunity analysis should be addressed first” — (1) whether the alleged facts show that the officials’ conduct violated a statutory or constitutional right and (2) whether that right was clearly established … II “Qualified immunity shields government officials from civil damages liability unless the official violated a statutory or constitutional right that was clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct.”

Feldman v. Hoffman

107 A.3d 821 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 19, 2014

Hoffman’s duties. 6 The trial court further found that the Letter “was not addressed solely to [Feldman] but to a number of people, and [Feldman] did not clearly establish that [Decedent’s] original note was her property … Hoffman qualifies as a high-ranking public official and it was alleged that he was acting within the scope of his duties, he qualifies for high official immunity. II.

State v. Andrews

424 S.C. 304 · Court of Appeals of South Carolina · Jul 18, 2018

On appeal, Andrews argues the circuit court erred in (1) denying him immunity under the Protection of Persons and Property Act 1 **308 (the Act) due to inconsistent witness testimony, (2) refusing to qualify Investigator … He stated shootings typically caused "memory fragmentation[, a]nd after a couple of sleep cycles[,] you're able to consolidate your memories" and remember the event more clearly.

Aupperlee v. Coughlin

97 F. Supp. 2d 336 · District Court, E.D. New York · May 31, 2000

Layne, 526 U.S. 603 , 119 S.Ct. 1692, 1697 , 143 L.Ed.2d 818 (1999) (quotation omitted). “ ‘Clearly established’ for qualified immunity purposes means that the contours of the right must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable … Even where the plaintiffs rights and the scope of the officials’ permissible conduct are clearly established, the qualified immunity defense protects a governmental actor if it was “objectively reasonable” for the actor to

Wood v. MCC Superintendant

89 F.3d 922 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Jul 22, 1996

B Plaintiffs can overcome the defendant's assertion of the qualified immunity defense only by showing that Clemons' conduct was objectively unreasonable in light of clearly established law. … is entitled to qualified immunity.

Carr v. Tatangelo

156 F. Supp. 2d 1369 · District Court, M.D. Georgia · Jul 31, 2001

If there was no underlying constitutional violation, then Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity, regardless of whether the law was clearly established. See Hartley v. … Defendants argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity on this claim because they were unaware that Carr had been shot and because Carr has not shown that their conduct violated clearly established law.

Maria Castro v. United States of America, Don Abrams, Jason Davs, Daniel Bologna

34 F.3d 106 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Sep 2, 1994

Defendants assert that they have qualified immunity because officials performing discretionary functions are immune from suit for damages unless the conduct in question violates clearly estab *110 lished statutory or constitutional … Though a mere mistake in the performance of an official duty may not deprive the officer of qualified immunity, that doctrine does not shield performance that either (a) was in violation of clearly established law, or (b)

Prisco v. United States, Department of Justice

851 F.2d 93 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jul 1, 1988

established law. … In exploring whether a right is clearly established, we must find “some but not precise correspondence” with applicable precedents. People of Three Mile Island v.

Leona Mullins v. Oscar Cyranek

805 F.3d 760 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Nov 9, 2015

Cyranek moved for summary judgment, asserting qualified immunity. … Police officers are immune from civil liability unless, in the course of performing their discretionary functions, they violate the plaintiff’s clearly established constitutional rights. Messerschmidt v.

Frank Barrett v. Nancy I. Harrington, A/K/A Penny Harrington

130 F.3d 246 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Nov 20, 1997

To survive Defendant’s assertion of qualified immunity, Barrett must show that, under § 1983, Harrington’s conduct: (1) violates Barrett’s clearly established constitutional rights, (2) of which a reasonable person would … See discussion supra, concerning a judge’s absolute immunity to report possible illegal conduct. 29 .As the District Court noted, there are a number of ways a public official can establish a defense of qualified immunity.

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

Ankele v. Hambrick

286 F. Supp. 2d 485 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 8, 2003

The defense of qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary acts from civil liability so long as their conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … Thus, qualified immunity is not available where a plaintiff has alleged a violation of a constitutional right and the right was clearly established when violated.

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.

Johnson-El v. Schoemehl

878 F.2d 1043 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jul 17, 1989

of clearly established law. … Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 640 , 107 S.Ct. 3034, 3039 (1987) (to overcome qualified immunity, a plaintiff must allege that the official violated a clearly established right, the contours of which are sufficiently clear that

Nathaniel Brent v. Wayne Cty. Dep't of Human Servs.

901 F.3d 656 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 23, 2018

Thus, if Wenk violated plaintiffs’ clearly established constitutional rights when executing the removal order, she would not be entitled to qualified immunity from plaintiffs’ claims. See id. at 695. … We held that the social workers had not violated clearly established law “by exceeding the limited consent to search that [Brent] had given them,” and we thereby held that the social workers were entitled to qualified immunity

Richard Wesley v. Alison Campbell

779 F.3d 421 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Mar 2, 2015

If the arrest was supported by probable cause, then Rigney would be entitled to qualified immunity. If not, then qualified immunity was inappropriate and both decisions must be reversed. … Hence, qualified immunity was inappropriate, because it is clearly established that “[p]olice officers cannot, in good faith, rely on a judicial determination of probable cause when that determination was premised on an officer

Lewis v. Washington

265 F. Supp. 2d 939 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jun 2, 2003

“Qualified immunity protects government officials from civil liability when performing discretionary functions so long as ‘their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … I find that the constitutional rights asserted by plaintiffs here are not “clearly established” for purposes of denying defendants qualified immunity.