Case law

L.R. v. School District

60 F. Supp. 3d 584 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 20, 2014

doctrine of qualified immunity. … The qualified immunity analysis involves two steps: “(1) whether the plaintiff alleged sufficient facts to establish the violation of a constitutional right, and (2) whether the right was ‘clearly established’ at the time

Christopher P. ex rel. Norma P. v. Marcus

915 F.2d 794 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Sep 27, 1990

, because the EAHCA’s applicability was not clearly established at the time the action arose. … Qualified Immunity for Violations of the EAHCA “[Gjovernment officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established

Adkins v. Rodriguez

59 F.3d 1034 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jul 6, 1995

Having raised the defense of qualified immunity, defendant then places the onus on the plaintiff to establish defendant has violated a clearly established law. Hovater v. Robinson, 1 F.3d 1063, 1066 (10th Cir.1993). … Because qualified immunity is an affirmative defense to a section 1983 action, providing immunity from suit from the outset, we have stated, "[t]he question of qualified immunity therefore dovetails almost precisely with

Pyne v. Meese

172 Cal. App. 3d 392 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 22, 1985

Under the Harlow test, Black and Hurd did not violate any clearly established statutory or constitutional rights and are thus immune from liability. … Once again, we must apply the Harlow test to determine whether a qualified immunity exists.

Tveraas v. Coffey

818 F. Supp. 75 · District Court, D. Vermont · Mar 5, 1993

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY The doctrine of qualified immunity provides immunity from civil suits to government officials performing discretionary functions. Harlow v. … To establish entitlement to such protection, a defendant must show that he has not violated any clearly established constitutional or statutory rights of which a reasonable person would have known. Id.

Richko Ex Rel. Horvath v. Wayne County

819 F.3d 907 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 15, 2016

The doctrine of qualified immunity shields government officials from civil liability under § 1983 if “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of No. 15-1524 … To determine whether an officer is entitled to qualified immunity, a court evaluates two independent prongs: whether the officer’s conduct violated a constitutional right, and whether that right was clearly established at

Copsey v. Swearingen

762 F. Supp. 1250 · District Court, M.D. Louisiana · Apr 23, 1991

Qualified Immunity Defendants next assert qualified immunity. … Whether a defendant asserting qualified immunity may be personally liable turns on the objective legal reasonableness of the defendant’s actions assessed in light of clearly established law.

Klein v. Madison

374 F. Supp. 3d 389 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 10, 2019

Qualified Immunity: Excessive Force & Unlawful Search The defendants have asserted the affirmative defense of qualified immunity as to the plaintiff's section 1983 claims for excessive force and unlawful search. … The Officers have qualified immunity if their conduct "does not violate a clearly established statutory or constitutional right of which a reasonable person would have known." Pearson v.

Hernandez v. Parker

508 P.3d 947 · New Mexico Court of Appeals · Feb 1, 2022

Sheriff Parker asserted qualified immunity as a defense to Plaintiff’s § 1983 claims. … Defendants’ invocation of qualified immunity shifted the “heavy burden” to Plaintiff to establish that (1) the facts demonstrated a violation of a constitutional right, and (2) the right at issue was clearly established at

Russell v. Coughlin

910 F.2d 75 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Aug 2, 1990

On the eve of trial, defendants moved for summary judgment arguing that because Russell had no clearly established liberty interest in remaining out of keeplock they were protected by qualified immunity. … Even when such rights are clearly established, qualified immunity also protects a government official "if it was objectively reasonable for [the official] to believe that his acts did not violate those rights."

Cullen v. Phillips

2001 Colo. J. C.A.R. 1809 · Colorado Court of Appeals · Apr 12, 2001

Defendants sought dismissal on several grounds including qualified immunity, laches, and failure to state a claim. … Once a defendant raises a qualified immunity defense, the plaintiff assumes the burden of showing that the defendant violated a clearly established constitutional or statutory right of which a reasonable person would have

Pham v. University of Louisiana at Monroe

194 F. Supp. 3d 534 · District Court, W.D. Louisiana · Jul 13, 2016

On the other hand, the clearly established prong does not necessarily require a case- “directly on point.” See Morgan v. … Jackson is entitled to qualified immunity. 2.Dr. El Sayed Dr. El Sayed is also entitled to qualified immunity.

Moss v. Kopp

505 F. Supp. 2d 1120 · District Court, D. Utah · Feb 16, 2007

; and accordingly, (3) the court need not address qualified immunity. … Because both orders clearly fall under his statutory authority, he would qualify for judicial immunity. Consequently, Defendants satisfy the first step of the quasi-judicial immunity analysis. 2.

Glenn v. City of Tyler

242 F.3d 307 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Feb 22, 2001

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY Qualified immunity protects government officials who perform discretionary functions from liability “unless their conduct violates clearly established statutory or constitutional … established law.”

Lincoln v. Barnes

855 F.3d 297 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Apr 20, 2017

Doctrine of Qualified Immunity “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 … Clearly Established Law The second part of the qualified immunity inquiry looks to whether the right was clearly established at the time of the violation.

Jaglowicz v. Bethel Township

178 F. Supp. 3d 262 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 14, 2016

Qualified Immunity Chief Worrilow and the five township supervisors invoke qualified immunity. Ja-glowicz having conceded that Worrilow has no liability, we consider qualified immunity for the five township supervisors. … In other words, if we find that the alleged right was not clearly established, the inquiry ends and the official is entitled to qualified immunity.

Maresca v. County of Bernalillo

804 F.3d 1301 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Oct 22, 2015

On cross- motions for summary judgment, the district court held that the officers were entitled to qualified immunity because they had not violated clearly established Fourth Amendment standards. … Because the reasonableness inquiry overlaps with the qualified immunity 21  analysis, a qualified immunity defense is of less value when raised in defense of

Warren v. Coffee County Commission

942 F. Supp. 1412 · District Court, M.D. Alabama · Aug 9, 1995

Clearly Established Law The court now turns to the clearly established law prong of the qualified immunity test. … Qualified immunity is appropriate on the excessive force claim. B.

Gubitosi v. Kapica

154 F.3d 30 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Aug 19, 1998

Pelletier, 516 U.S. 299, 309 , 116 S.Ct. 834 , 133 L.Ed.2d 773 (1996)), and proceed to consider whether the qualified immunity defense is established as a matter of law. 4 Here the gravamen of Kapica's qualified immunity … As a result, his qualified immunity defense is established as a matter of law. 13 (2) Accordingly, we vacate so much of the district court's order of May 9, 1997 as denied Kapica's motion for summary judgment based on qualified

Brown v. McElroy

160 F. Supp. 2d 699 · District Court, S.D. New York · Sep 4, 2001

It is well-established that qualified immunity acts to shield government officials from liability under section 1983 “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … their actions did not violate a clearly established right.