Case law

Austin Joseph Goodwin v. Board of Education of Fayette County

West Virginia Supreme Court · Nov 12, 2019

to qualified immunity. … established statutory laws rendering qualified immunity inapplicable.”9 The statute cited by the Petitioner as imposing a mandatory or discretionary duty on the Respondents to supervise him is W.

McIntyre v. United States

336 F. Supp. 2d 87 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Sep 30, 2004

Qualified Immunity Under the qualified immunity doctrine, “government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly … The defense of qualified immunity applies unless the law is clearly established either by materially similar precedent or by general legal principles that apply with obvious clarity to the facts of the case. Hope v.

Brown v. Head

228 F. Supp. 2d 1324 · District Court, M.D. Alabama · Oct 30, 2002

Pelzer, — U.S. -, 122 S.Ct. 2508 , 153 L.Ed.2d 666 (2002), the Supreme Court recently modified the Eleventh Circuit’s qualified immunity standard with respect to what constitutes a “clearly established” right. … Indeed, Eleventh Circuit courts have repeatedly held that this legal tenant is “clearly established” for purposes of addressing qualified immunity claims by public officials. E.g., Id.; Herren v.

Fleming v. State University of New York

502 F. Supp. 2d 324 · District Court, E.D. New York · Aug 6, 2007

clearly established legal rules then in effect.” … complains violated clearly established law.”

D'Aguanno v. Gallagher

50 F.3d 877 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Mar 29, 1995

Therefore, to overcome defendants’ qualified immunity defense, plaintiffs must establish that defendants’ conduct violated “‘clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known … To overcome the qualified immunity defense, citing precedent which establishes a general right will not do.

Kenneth W. Martin v. John P. Malhoyt, John Doe(s) Shirley Ann Stevens v. David H. Stover, John Doe

830 F.2d 237 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Nov 24, 1987

The district court recited the Harlow standard: qualified immunity shields government officials as long as “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … action is a violation) violates a clearly established right.

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.

Hickey v. Hayse

188 F. Supp. 2d 722 · District Court, W.D. Kentucky · Dec 17, 2001

A government official enjoys qualified immunity if his conduct does not violate clearly established constitutional rights of which a reasonable person should have known. Williams v. … To find that an officer has violated the clearly established constitutional right negating the defense of qualified immunity, the trial court must find binding precedent establishing the right.

Mullinax v. McElhenney

672 F. Supp. 1449 · District Court, N.D. Georgia · Nov 10, 1987

At best, defendants could be entitled to qualified immunity for these acts if, in doing the acts, they did not violate a clearly established law of which a reasonable person would have known. Harlow v. … and property rights were lawful in light of clearly established law and the information they possessed at the time.

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.

Pinson v. United States Department of Justice

246 F. Supp. 3d 211 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 30, 2017

Qualified Immunity The DOJ asserts, cursorily, that Dignam and Samuels are shielded from liability by qualified immunity.12 MTD at 8–9. … As discussed below, the Count concludes that Pinson had a clearly established right. The qualified immunity defense thus turns on whether there was a violation of that right.

McGregor v. Greer

748 F. Supp. 881 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 27, 1990

Therefore, in order to determine whether qualified immunity attaches, we must first determine whether plaintiff alleges violation of any clearly established rights. … Thus, the Court concludes that plaintiff did not have a “clearly established” right to privacy in the lobby of her apartment. Therefore, defendants are entitled to qualified immunity on this issue.

Chavez v. Illinois State Police

27 F. Supp. 2d 1053 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Nov 5, 1998

To overcome a qualified immunity defense, the plaintiff must clear two separate hurdles. The plaintiff must show, first, that the right is, in fact, a clearly established right, Apostol v. … In the interests of completeness, the court will consider the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis and will assume, arguendo, that the plaintiffs have established that “freedom of movement” is a clearly established

Cole v. Sharp

898 F. Supp. 799 · District Court, D. Kansas · Aug 11, 1995

The defendants have also raised qualified immunity as a defense. … 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

Terrell v. Petrie

763 F. Supp. 1342 · District Court, E.D. Virginia · May 17, 1991

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY This issue is the crux of Defendants’ motion to dismiss. The central question is whether Plaintiff can prove a violation of clearly established constitutional rights if allowed to go to trial. … If the Defendants acted reasonably, even if erroneously, they are entitled to qualified immunity. 1 Plaintiff claims Defendants violated three clearly established constitutional rights. They are considered in turn: 1.

Bankhead v. Knickrehm

360 F.3d 839 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Mar 11, 2004

record] ... support a claim of violation of clearly established law." … The question on appeal is whether the summary-judgment record supports a finding that defendants violated clearly established law. Ibid.

Avery v. King

110 F.3d 12 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 1, 1997

“Government officials performing discretionary functions are afforded qualified immunity, shielding them from civil damages, as long as their conduct ‘does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights … Therefore, Officer King was entitled to qualified immunity if “ ‘a reasonable officer could have believed [Avery’s arrest] to be lawful, in light of clearly established law and the information the [arresting] officers possessed

Littlejohn v. Rose

768 F.2d 765 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 16, 1985

by impermissible motivation or in disregard of plaintiff’s clearly established rights.” … Rose, individually, is entitled to the defense of qualified immunity.

S.P. v. Newark Police Department

428 N.J. Super. 210 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Sep 27, 2012

. 2C:25-21, and whether the officers acted in good faith to afford them qualified immunity under the PDVA, N.J.S.A. 2C:25~22. … Based on this determination, we need not reach the City’s defense of qualified immunity under the PDVA. I.

Steele v. City of Bemidji

242 F. Supp. 2d 624 · District Court, D. Minnesota · Jan 2, 2003

This shield is known as qualified immunity. To determine whether the five above-named defendants have qualified immunity in this case, the Court makes a three-pronged inquiry. … To withstand a defense of qualified immunity at the summary judgment stage, a plaintiff must assert a violation of a constitutional or statutory right; that right must have been clearly established at the time of the violation