Case law

Lee v. Arapahoe County

197 F.3d 1291 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Dec 1, 1999

We affirm the district court’s denial of qualified immunity to Mr. … The final step in reviewing the district court’s denial of qualified immunity to Mr. Gibbs is to determine whether the right violated was clearly established at the time of Mr. Lee’s termination. Siegert v.

Losch v. Borough Of Parkesburg

736 F.2d 903 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jun 14, 1984

Kleindienst, 729 F.2d 267, 273 (3d Cir.1984). 26 Qualified immunity protects a defendant who failed to observe a right or a legal standard that was not clearly established when the defendant acted. … On the other hand, as the Harlow Court concluded, "[i]f the law was clearly established, the immunity defense ordinarily should fail," unless the defendant "claims extraordinary circumstances and can prove that he neither

Doe v. Marsh

105 F.3d 106 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jan 22, 1997

“Even where the plaintiffs federal rights and the scope of the official’s permissible conduct are clearly established, the qualified immunity defense protects a government actor if it was ‘objectively reasonable’ for him … ‘clearly established’ at the. time [the action] was taken.”)

Jaggers v. Zolliecoffer

290 Ark. 250 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Nov 3, 1986

was not entitled to a qualified immunity. … Forsyth, supra, it is clearly stated that the qualified immunity of federal officials is an immunity from suit, citing Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (1982).

Cozzo v. Tangipahoa Parish Council-President Government

279 F.3d 273 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jan 10, 2002

They maintain that they are entitled to qualified immunity from Ms. Cozzo’s claims because interpretation of the TRO to require her eviction was clearly within Captain People’s discretionary authority. … Cozzo clearly established Fourth Amendment rights, we are required to address only the second pro ng of the qualified immunity test, that is, whether Deputy Joiner’s actions were objectively reasonable.

Hegarty v. Somerset County

848 F. Supp. 257 · District Court, D. Maine · Mar 23, 1994

Qualified Immunity All Defendants claim that they are entitled to qualified immunity. … The standard for qualified immunity is that “government officials performing discretionary functions, generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory

Heap v. Carter

112 F. Supp. 3d 402 · District Court, E.D. Virginia · Jul 1, 2015

Qualified immunity is available where a govérnment official performing discretionary functions “does not violate clearly established statutory-or constitutional rights of which a- reasonable person would have known.” … and if other appellate federal courts have split on the question of whether an asserted right exists, the right cannot be clearly established for qualified immunity purposes.

John Crosetto v. State Bar of Wisconsin

12 F.3d 1396 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jan 24, 1994

Where the affirmative defense of qualified immunity is properly raised, “the plaintiff bears the burden of establishing the existence of the allegedly clearly established constitutional right.” Rakovich v. … Since Smay properly raised this defense, unless Plaintiffs can show that a sufficient consensus clearly established the existence of a violated constitutional right, Smay' will receive qualified immunity from Plaintiffs’

Rodis v. City and County of San Francisco

499 F.3d 1094 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Aug 28, 2007

The *1097 court also found Barry and Liddicoet not entitled to qualified immunity because the illegality of the arrest was clearly established at the time. II. DISCUSSION A. … Defendants are Not Entitled to Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity serves as a defense to § 1983 claims against government officers “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional

D.H., Ex Rel. Dawson v. Clayton County School District

830 F.3d 1306 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jul 29, 2016

Clearly Established Law “A right may be clearly established for qualified immunity purposes in one of three ways: (1) case law with indistinguishable facts clearly establishing the constitutional right; (2) a broad … established constitutional right and is entitled to qualified immunity against D.H.’s § 1983 claim.

Edwards v. Parish

District Court, D. South Carolina · Jun 8, 2022

Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982) (Qualified immunity protects officials who “violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”). … Harris, 65 F.3d 347, 359–60 (4th Cir. 1995) (“If a plaintiff has alleged a clearly established right, summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds is improper as long as there remains any material factual dispute regarding

Lyles v. Sparks

79 F.3d 372 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Mar 19, 1996

but also of federal law that was "clearly established" at the time the alleged conduct occurred. … established, the district court erred in declining to afford Green and Krautheim qualified immunity from the surviving constitutional tort claims against them.

Wilson v. Meeks

52 F.3d 1547 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Apr 20, 1995

However, qualified immunity is not a defense when officials’ actions violate clearly established constitutional rights. Quezada, 944 F.2d at 718 . … We conclude the facts here do not violate a clearly established duty under the constitution. The district court erred in refusing to grant summary judgment based on qualified immunity. VI.

Nassau County Department of Social Services v. R.B.

23 Misc. 3d 270 · New York City Family Court · Dec 18, 2008

To qualify for an exemption respondent must first demonstrate that she holds a religious belief that is contrary to immunization. … The testimony of the DSS caseworker clearly established that the three children have never been immunized.

Metro. Dade County v. Chase Fed. Housing

737 So. 2d 494 · Supreme Court of Florida · Jun 10, 1999

In conjunction with the statewide program, the Legislature established a fund to clean sites contaminated by dry cleaning solvents. [2] The Act provides that the owners or operators of dry cleaning establishments, who could … CONCLUSION We find that the Legislature has clearly expressed its intent through the language of the statute as well as the structure and purpose of the Act to apply the immunity provisions found in subsections 376.3078(3

Waldrop v. Evans

681 F. Supp. 840 · District Court, M.D. Georgia · Mar 15, 1988

The Harlow decision defined the limits of qualified immunity in objective terms and instructed courts to consider only whether the official’s conduct in question violated clearly established law. … of qualified immunity. 5 B.

Mary D. Branch v. Officer Timothy Gorman

742 F.3d 1069 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Feb 12, 2014

Qualified immunity is available to government officials who prove their conduct did "not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. … Officer Garbisch is entitled to qualified immunity.

Levy v. City of New York

935 F. Supp. 2d 575 · District Court, E.D. New York · Mar 29, 2013

Qualified Immunity 1. Applicable Law Defendants claim they are entitled to qualified immunity as to Plaintiffs false arrest and malicious prosecution claims. … Sergeant Reed is Entitled to Qualified Immunity The Court concludes Sgt.

Brook Mallak v. Anthony Runde

Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · May 19, 2016

The defendants moved for summary judgment based on qualified immunity. … Qualified immunity shields a government official from liability unless his conduct violates “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v.

Boswell v. County of Sherburne

849 F.2d 1117 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jun 21, 1988

were clearly established at the time of the challenged actions * * Mitchell v. … This court has in the past taken a broad view of what constitutes “clearly established law” for the purposes of a qualified immunity inquiry, requiring some but not precise factual correspondence with precedents and demanding