Case law

Mary Roe v. Texas Department Of Protective And Regulatory Services

299 F.3d 395 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Aug 13, 2002

established" in the context of qualified immunity. … established" for purposes of qualified immunity. 19 It is difficult to argue that a matter of law is clearly established for state actors in this circuit where this court has not opined on the issue in question and the other

Ledvina v. Cerasani

213 Ariz. 569 · Court of Appeals of Arizona · Oct 31, 2006

reports in the public interest, a situation clearly not present here. … A qualified privilege is inadequate under the circumstances....

Jones v. Perry County Fiscal Court

185 F. Supp. 3d 947 · District Court, E.D. Kentucky · May 11, 2016

Qualified Immunity for Judge Alexander “The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … [Record No. 40-1, p. 13] Further, he contends that Jones’ right to associate with his uncle is not clearly established.

Gregory v. City of Louisville

444 F.3d 725 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 11, 2006

of clearly established law.” … The Supreme Court noted that when the issue on qualified immunity turned on whether the facts, as alleged, constituted a violation of clearly established constitutional law, the issue on appeal was sufficiently separate from

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

Whalen v. Commonwealth

21 Mass. L. Rptr. 193 · Massachusetts Superior Court · Jun 26, 2006

not entitled to qualified immunity. … However, in addition to proving that the state or federal right was “clearly established” (because qualified immunity applies under the MCRA), liability under the MCRA requires the additional step of showing that the violation

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.”

Shultz v. Allegheny County

835 F. Supp. 2d 14 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 16, 2011

Accordingly, absolute or qualified immunity “will be upheld on a 12(b)(6) motion only when the immunity is established on the face of the complaint.” Leve *25 to v. … Qualified immunity shields “government officials performing discretionary functions ... from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of

Fraser v. Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority

District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jun 16, 2021

Qualified immunity protects public employees “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known … Under that standard, they are clearly protected by qualified immunity.

Holloway v. Brechtse

279 F. Supp. 2d 613 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 18, 2003

Qualified Immunity Finally, Defendant argues Plaintiffs complaint should be dismissed because Defendant is entitled to qualified immunity. … The standard for qualified immunity is an objective one that asks whether a reasonable public official would know that his specific conduct violated clearly established rights. Grant v.

Burns v. Davis

196 Ariz. 155 · Court of Appeals of Arizona · Aug 10, 1999

Instead, a qualified immunity may be most appropriate. For example, in Ellish v. … We find this necessary because Arizona case law is not clearly settled on this subject.

Gonzalez Gonzalez v. Zayas

671 F. Supp. 106 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Aug 17, 1987

III.Qualified Immunity In actions brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 , a defense of qualified immunity from liability for damages is available to state executive officers performing discretionary functions, “insofar as their … conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”

LoSacco v. City of Middletown

822 F. Supp. 870 · District Court, D. Connecticut · Feb 22, 1993

First, the motion seeks summary judgment on the issue of qualified immunity. … In this case, the defendants have raised the defense of qualified immunity.

Ottman v. City Of Independence

341 F.3d 751 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Oct 1, 2003

We review de novo a denial of qualified immunity. Holloway v. … Reeves, 277 F.3d 1035 , 1037 (8th Cir.2002). 13 Government officials who perform discretionary functions are entitled to qualified immunity unless their alleged conduct violated clearly established federal constitutional

Evans v. Bayer

684 F. Supp. 2d 1365 · District Court, S.D. Florida · Feb 12, 2010

To overcome qualified immunity, the plaintiff must show (1) that the defendant violated a constitutional right, and (2) that this right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation. Id. (citing Wilson v. … Clearly Established “It is ... appropriate for a district court to grant the defense of qualified immunity at the motion to dismiss stage if the complaint ‘fails to allege the violation of a clearly established constitutional

Rhodes v. Robinson

408 F.3d 559 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Apr 25, 2005

Rowland, 65 F.3d 802 , 806 & n. 4 (9th Cir.1995) ("[T]he prohibition against retaliatory punishment is `clearly established law' in the Ninth Circuit, for qualified immunity purposes. … must first reiterate our firm recognition that "the prohibition against retaliatory punishment is `clearly established law' in the Ninth Circuit, for qualified immunity purposes."

Bull v. City and County of San Francisco

539 F.3d 1193 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Aug 22, 2008

Defendants now appeal *1196 the district court’s denial of qualified immunity for Sheriff Hennessey. 5 II We review de novo a district court’s decision to grant summary judgment on the ground of qualified immunity. … court’s denial of qualified immunity.

Aviles Martinez v. Jimenez Monroig

764 F. Supp. 240 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · May 28, 1991

THE QUALIFIED IMMUNITY DOCTRINE The doctrine of qualified immunity insulates government actors in their exercise of discretionary powers, from civil liability insofar as their conduct does not abridge clearly established … As the challenged patronage practices were not clearly established as violations of federal law when the conduct was allegedly committed, the doctrine of qualified immunity insulates the defendants from civil liability.

Michelle Mammaro v. DCP&P

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Feb 19, 2016

This is why caseworkers are protected by qualified immunity unless clearly established law puts them on notice that their conduct is a violation of the Constitution. … In this case, there was no such clearly established law, and qualified immunity covers the Division’s caseworkers.

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.”