Case law

Ziccardi v. Commonwealth

109 Pa. Commw. 628 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 8, 1987

Federal courts have applied only a qualified immunity on behalf of Commonwealth officials in section 1983 claims. … Specifically, under the United States Supreme Court’s pronouncement in Wood, the immunity defense would be unavailable to the secretary if the constitutional rights which he allegedly infringed were clearly established at

Grossman v. Richards

722 A.2d 371 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Jan 13, 1999

P. 56(b) on the ground that no genuine issue of material fact existed and Grossman failed to establish the elements of his claims. … Madura, 474 A.2d 166 (Me.1984), can be read to suggest that only a qualified immunity was intended, it is incorrect.

Schreiner v. Hodge

504 P.3d 410 · Supreme Court of Kansas · Feb 18, 2022

But not every act involving an element of judgment will qualify for immunity. … In addition, the § 1983 plaintiff faces the towering barrier of qualified immunity.

Broudy v. Mather

366 F. Supp. 2d 3 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 4, 2005

The applicable legal standard 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 court facing qualified immunity claims ordinarily engages in a two-step inquiry.

Fidler v. City of Indianapolis

428 F. Supp. 2d 857 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Apr 20, 2006

A government official is not entitled to qualified immunity where the facts plaintiff alleges (1) reveal a constitutional violation (2) according to “clearly established” law at the time, meaning that a reasonable officer … Accordingly, qualified immunity is not available at this stage in the case. Morfin v.

Jennings v. Patton

718 F. Supp. 2d 757 · District Court, S.D. Mississippi · Feb 23, 2010

As Patton notes, qualified immunity protects public officials acting within the scope of their official duties from civil liability so long as “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitu *763 … Patton argues in his motion that he is entitled to qualified immunity since Jennings cannot establish any constitutional violation.

Falkiewicz v. City of Westland

25 F. Supp. 2d 783 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Oct 26, 1998

Defendants claim that they are entitled to qualified immunity because they did not violate any clearly established rights. 4 Standard of Review Qualified Immunity Defendants rely upon the doctrine of qualified immunity to … Under the qualified immunity doctrine, “government officials pferforming discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory

Cummins v. Campbell

44 F.3d 847 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Dec 28, 1994

We hold that the Regents were entitled to qualified immunity because the constitutional law they allegedly violated was not clearly established at the time they briefly suspended authority to show the film. … However, the district court agreed with Appellees that the law Appellees allegedly violated was not clearly established and granted them summary judgment based on qualified immunity. A.

Jack G. Kelly v. Charles C. Foti, Jr., City of New Orleans, John Doe, and Jane Roe

77 F.3d 819 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Apr 29, 1996

Denial of summary judgment on the ground of qualified immunity is immediately appealable to the extent that the question on appeal is whether the undisputed facts amount to a violation of clearly established law. … a qualified immunity defense.

Robert O’CONNOR, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CHICAGO TRANSIT AUTHORITY, Walter H. Clark, Robert E. Paaswell, Et Al., Defendants-Appellees

985 F.2d 1362 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Feb 12, 1993

does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … It is the plaintiff who bears the burden of establishing the existence of the allegedly clearly established constitutional right.

Ennis v. Lott

589 F. Supp. 2d 33 · District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 15, 2008

Individual Capacity With respect to the claims against him in his individual capacity, defendant Berry *36 argues that he is protected by qualified immunity “insofar as his ... conduct dues not violate clearly established … Under the doctrine of 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

Butts v. City of Bowling Green

374 F. Supp. 2d 532 · District Court, W.D. Kentucky · Jun 23, 2005

“To overcome an officer’s entitlement to qualified immunity, however, a plaintiff must establish: (1) a substantial showing that the defendant stated a deliberate falsehood or showed reckless disregard for the truth and ( … violation was clearly established and whether, in light of the clearly established law, Detective Raley’s actions were unreasonable.

Essalene Lambert v. City of Dumas

187 F.3d 931 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Aug 9, 1999

“Qualified immunity shields government officials from suit unless their conduct violated a clearly established constitutional or statutory right of which the reasonable person would have known.” Yowell v. … The Appellee alleges the violation of a clearly established constitutional right.

Moore v. Winer

190 F. Supp. 2d 804 · District Court, D. Maryland · Mar 20, 2002

The Supreme Court has recognized that questions of qualified immunity should be resolved as early as possible in the litigation, *806 as the purpose of the doctrine of qualified immunity is to serve as a bar to suit, not … Having in mind the Supreme Court’s threshold tests for consideration of a qualified immunity claim, see Wilson v.

Brown v. Armenti

247 F.3d 69 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Apr 17, 2001

immunity, "the appealable issue is a purely legal one: whether the facts alleged . . . support a claim of violation of clearly established law." … "clearly established." 31 Behrens v.

Acevedo-Garcia v. Vera Monroig

30 F. Supp. 2d 141 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Nov 23, 1998

Therefore, Plaintiffs assert that Defendants are not immune from liability since their unconstitutional actions occurred when the law regarding patronage dismissals was “clearly established” in this Circuit. … In addition, the individual defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity as the right to be free from political discrimination and actual or constructive patronage dismissals was clearly established in the First Circuit

Jacquelyn M. Chagnon v. Griffin Bell

642 F.2d 1248 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Oct 14, 1980

defense only in an area of “clearly established” law. … Rather, the question is whether the conduct complained of transgressed “clearly established” constitutional limits.

Hoyer v. DiCocco

457 F. Supp. 2d 110 · District Court, D. Connecticut · Sep 22, 2006

Qualified immunity is warranted if either (1) the official’s actions did *116 not violate clearly established law, or (2) even if the actions violated a clearly established law, the official was objectively reasonable in … Was the Violation Contrary to Clearly Established Law?

Doe v. Flaherty

623 F.3d 577 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Oct 19, 2010

We first address the district court’s denial of qualified immunity. … Qualified immunity shields a public official such as Wilcher from civil lawsuits when her conduct does not violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”

Business Leaders In Christ v. The University of Iowa

991 F.3d 969 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Mar 22, 2021

The court also granted the individual defendants’ motion for summary judgment based on qualified immunity because it concluded that the law was not clearly established. … Instead, the focus of this appeal is limited to whether, for purposes of qualified immunity, the law was clearly established that the individual defendants’ conduct violated those rights.