Case law

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.

Singleton v. Doe

210 F. Supp. 3d 359 · District Court, E.D. New York · Sep 28, 2016

Defendants also argue that, irrespective of Plaintiffs liberty interest, they are entitled to qualified immunity because they acted reasonably and not in violation of a clearly established right. (Id. at 8.) … Qualified immunity Qualified immunity protects public officials from liability for civil damages “unless the official violated a statutory or constitutional right that was clearly established at the time of the challenged

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.

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

Graham v. Gray

827 F.2d 679 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Sep 1, 1987

established law." … issue to the district court in one of his motions for dismissal and appealed the denial of that motion, we might have held in his favor: "Unless the plaintiff's allegations state a claim of violation of clearly established

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

Matusick v. Erie County Water Authority

774 F. Supp. 2d 514 · District Court, W.D. New York · Mar 1, 2011

Defendants’ argument for qualified immunity as a matter of law was that the First Amendment right to intimate association was not clearly established for dating, as opposed to married, relationships when their alleged acts … Defendants’ argument for qualified immunity is the most difficult one to understand, because they never identified what they were doing that required qualified immunity for racial slurs.

Connie Robison v. Susan R. Via and Harold Harrison

821 F.2d 913 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jun 17, 1987

There are a number of ways in which a defendant official may establish a defense of qualified immunity under § 1983. … For example, it has long been clearly established that an arrest without probable cause is a constitutional violation.

Amnesty International, USA v. Battle

484 F. Supp. 2d 1279 · District Court, S.D. Florida · Apr 24, 2007

Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, government officials performing discretionary functions are immune not just from liability, but from suit, unless the conduct which is the basis for suit violates “clearly established … The purported right Amnesty seeks to invoke in order to pierce Defendants’ qualified immunity here is not as clearly established as the rights invoked by the arrested protestors in Jones .

Southerland v. City of New York

680 F.3d 127 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · May 22, 2012

Callahan, 555 U.S. at 237, the pertinent 4 qualified immunity inquiry is whether the right was clearly established at the time of the 5 defendant’s actions, see Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 131 S. … Thus, even if the right at issue “was clearly established in certain 12 respects,” a state actor “is still entitled to qualified immunity if ‘officers of reasonable 13 competence could disagree’ on the legality of the

Arrington v. Dickerson

915 F. Supp. 1516 · District Court, M.D. Alabama · Jan 31, 1996

The court also reserved ruling on the qualified immunity issue. … Instead, the question in this case, as in all qualified immunity cases, is fact specific: in May 1991, was it clearly established in this circuit that it was unconstitutional for a mental institution to fail to supervise

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.”

Dall v. Caron

628 A.2d 117 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Jul 8, 1993

The immunity granted in the more limited circumstances described in subpara-graphs A through D is absolute and not qualified by the bad faith proviso in sub-paragraph E. 2 We conclude, therefore, that the summary judgment … The Legislature understood the distinction between qualified and absolute immunity. See House Amendment A to L.D. 923, No. H-158, Statement of Fact (113th Legis.1987); and P.L. 1987, ch. 740, § 8.

Carroll v. Lancaster Cnty.

301 F. Supp. 3d 486 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 14, 2018

The Court went on to explain that neither Colburn I nor Colburn II clearly established such a right. Id. at 2045 . … Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions from liability for civil *513 damages unless their conduct violates clearly established statutory or constitutional rights

Baxter v. Vigo County School Corporation

26 F.3d 728 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jun 14, 1994

By now, it is well established that certain government officials enjoy a qualified immunity from suit. … To determine the applicability of qualified immunity, the defendants' actions must be compared to what a reasonable official would believe was required in light of the clearly established legal rules.... 27 Casteel v.

Smith v. Arkansas Department of Correction

103 F.3d 637 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Dec 18, 1996

some cases, the defendant) support a claim of violation of clearly established law.'" … of whether the alleged facts support a violation of clearly established law.

MacDonald v. Angelone

69 F. Supp. 2d 787 · District Court, E.D. Virginia · Sep 2, 1999

The doctrine of good faith qualified immunity shields government employees performing discretionary functions from civil liability unless their conduct violates “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … Second, courts must determine whether the right is clearly established. See id. (citing Collinson, 895 F.2d at 998 ).

Germany v. Vance

673 F. Supp. 1143 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Dec 1, 1987

They also assert that they are entitled to qualified immunity as state officials because they had no clearly established constitutional duty to disclose the recantation by plaintiffs father. Discussion A.. … Qualified Immunity. The defendants have raised a qualified immunity defense to all of plaintiffs claims.

Jean v. Collins

107 F.3d 1111 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Mar 7, 1997

Ill A government official is entitled to qualified immunity from civil liability under § 1983 when his or her “conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would … B In deciding whether Shingleton and Collins are entitled to qualified immunity we must next determine whether the specific right infringed was clearly established in 1982. Pritchett v.