Case law

Roman v. Appleby

558 F. Supp. 449 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 22, 1983

Immunity Defendants’ defense of qualified or “good faith” immunity is much more persuasive. The immunity concept is based upon the need to ensure principled and conscientious governmental decision-making. Crowder v. … established law, thereby entitling her to the defense of qualified immunity, I also find that defense of immunity is supported by the provisions of the Child Protective Services Law (CPSL) of 1975, 11 P.S. § 2201, et seq

Fields v. Blake

349 F. Supp. 2d 910 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 20, 2004

Under the qualified immunity doctrine, “[o]fficials exercising discretionary powers are ‘shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … Once a plaintiff has *922 established a constitutional violation, courts evaluating a qualified immunity claim must decide whether the constitutional right was clearly established. Id.

Bliss v. Franco

446 F.3d 1036 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Apr 25, 2006

right was clearly established when the alleged violation occurred.” … Trask satisfy their burdens under the first two prongs of qualified immunity analysis. Their allegations under the Fourth Amendment, if true, establish a constitutional violation.

Butler v. City of Prairie Village

974 F. Supp. 1386 · District Court, D. Kansas · Aug 25, 1997

Qualified Immunity, i. Standard. Qualified immunity provides immunity from suit, not merely from liability. Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 526 , 105 S.Ct. 2806, 2815-16 , 86 L.Ed.2d 411 (1985). … “Ordinarily, in order for the law to be clearly established, there must be a Supreme Court or Tenth Circuit decision on point, or the clearly established weight of authority from other courts must have found the law to be

Snider v. Pekny

899 F. Supp. 2d 798 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Sep 27, 2012

Governmental officials are entitled to immunity from civil liability under § 1983 for their actions, with the important qualifier that the officials’ conduct must not violate any clearly established statutory or constitutional … Snider’s argument against qualified immunity is that his “Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches, seizures, and arrest was clearly established at the time.” DE 98 at 12.

Torres v. Damicis

853 A.2d 1233 · Supreme Court of Rhode Island · Jun 24, 2004

We concluded that “[a]ny damages caused by the alleged negligence of a municipal budding inspector during the performance of his or her employment, therefore, qualifies for the tort immunity provided by the general public … Unless Torres can prove that his circumstances qualify under one of the exceptions to the public duty doctrine, we see no reason to depart from this general grant of immunity.

Trujillo v. Rio Arriba County ex rel. Rio Arriba County Sheriff's Department

319 F.R.D. 571 · District Court, D. New Mexico · Dec 19, 2016

established prong of the qualified immunity analysis. … Clearly Established Rights in the Qualified Immunity Analysis.

Stevens-Rucker v. City of Columbus

242 F. Supp. 3d 608 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Mar 16, 2017

Qualified Immunity It is well-established that “[p]o-lice officers are immune from civil liability unless, in the course of performing their discretionary functions, they violate the plaintiffs clearly established constitutional … Accordingly, Frenz is entitled to qualified immunity for his use of force against White because Plaintiff has failed to establish either prong of the two-part test.

Veneklase v. City of Fargo

904 F. Supp. 1038 · District Court, D. North Dakota · Feb 17, 1995

“Qualified immunity protects a government official from suit if, at the time of the challenged acts, it was not clearly established that those actions would violate clearly established law of which a reasonable person would … The qualified immunity defense may still be viable even when a plaintiff establishes the violation of a clearly established constitutional right, if the defendant can demonstrate the “objective legal reasonableness” of the

Stamps v. Town of Framingham

38 F. Supp. 3d 146 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Dec 24, 2014

Stamps was objectively reasonable; and (3) Duncan is entitled to qualified immunity because a constitutional right to be free from unintentional shootings was not clearly established at the time of the incident. II. … For purposes of the second step of the qualified-immunity analysis, “[a] right is clearly established only if it would be clear to a reasonable officer that his conduct was unlawful in the situation he confronted.”

Greene v. Camreta

588 F.3d 1011 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Dec 10, 2009

If a government official “could ... have reasonably but mistakenly believed that his or her conduct did not violate a clearly established constitutional right,” he is entitled to qualified immunity. Jackson v. … Because Camreta’s alleged misrepresentation in support of his request for a protective custody order — again, assuming it occurred — violated the Greenes’ clearly established rights, he is not entitled to qualified immunity

Cameron v. Lang

274 Ga. 122 · Supreme Court of Georgia · Jun 25, 2001

OFFICIAL (QUALIFIED) IMMUNITY 1. … issue of qualified immunity in favor of the issue of causation.

Brandon v. City of New York

705 F. Supp. 2d 261 · District Court, S.D. New York · Mar 30, 2010

Okst, 101 F.3d 845, 857 (2d Cir.1996) (“[P]ublic officials are entitled to qualified immunity if (1) their conduct does not violate clearly established constitutional rights, or (2) it was objectively reasonable for them … violated a clearly established right.”

MacLean v. Secor

876 F. Supp. 695 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 14, 1995

established at the time of his confinement, defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. … Defendants, however, are entitled to qualified immunity on this claim because, at the time plaintiff was detained, this liberty interest was not a “clearly established” right.

Flint Electric Membership Corp. v. Whitworth

68 F.3d 1309 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Nov 15, 1995

The court concluded that the DOC officials should have known they were required to follow competitive bidding procedures under clearly established state law, thus, they were not entitled to … qualified immunity from § 1983 monetary liability.

Davis v. Carroll

390 F. Supp. 2d 415 · District Court, D. Delaware · Sep 27, 2005

Whether Defendants are shielded from liability under the doctrine of qualified immunity A public official is entitled to qualified immunity if the official’s “conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … If not, the inquiry ends, and the officer is entitled to qualified immunity. Id.

Jamie Hamilton v. Gary T. Myers, Executive Director of the Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency

281 F.3d 520 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 10, 2002

Accordingly, any “objectively reasonable” action by a state officer, as assessed in the light of clearly established law at the time of the conduct at issue, will be insulated by qualified immunity. … Thus, even if a public officer has deprived the plaintiff of a federal right, qualified immunity will apply if an objectively reasonable official would not have understood, by referencing clearly established law, that his

Gaztambide v. Gaztambide

794 F. Supp. 451 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · May 20, 1992

Kaiter specifically held that: the issue of immunity must be subject to one interlocutory appeal in order to establish the defendant’s right to avoid trial altogether. … the issue of qualified immunity.

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

Figueroa v. Gates

207 F. Supp. 2d 1085 · District Court, C.D. California · Jun 11, 2002

basis of qualified immunity. … On the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis, “whether the right was clearly established,” Katz, 533 U.S. at 201, 121 S.Ct. 2151 , the Court asks whether “ ‘the contours of the right [were] sufficiently clear that