Case law

Min Li v. Qi Jiang

38 F. Supp. 3d 870 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Aug 13, 2014

Defendants assert that Li has failed to show that the right in question was “clearly established” as required to defeat a qualified immunity defense. ECF No. 4 at 12. … The qualified immunity defense “shields governmental officials performing discretionary functions [ ] insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable

Joseph De Ritis v. Thomas McGarrigle

861 F.3d 444 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jun 29, 2017

not “clearly established” at the time of the challenged conduct. … Here, addressing both prongs of qualified immunity, the District Court concluded that Roger had violated De Ritis’s right to free speech and that the right, as defined by the District Court, was clearly established.

Amtreco, Inc. v. O.H. Materials, Inc.

802 F. Supp. 440 · District Court, M.D. Georgia · Oct 13, 1992

for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. … Assuming that plaintiffs had constitutional rights protecting them from the alleged wrongful conduct of the federal defendants, these rights are obviously not clearly established.

Harris v. Coweta County

433 F.3d 807 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Dec 23, 2005

The defendants having established their eligibility for qualified immunity, the burden then shifts to the plaintiff to show that qualified immunity is not appro *812 priate. Lee, 284 F.3d at 1194 . … Is Scott entitled to qualified immunity?

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.

Dixon v. Bishop

District Court, D. Maryland · Mar 11, 2020

However, even if the alleged sexual harassment arguably could reach such a level, the Correctional Defendants would 11 be entitled to qualified immunity, because there is no clearly … Ct. 577, 589 (2018) (stating that “officers are entitled to qualified immunity under § 1983 unless (1) they violated a federal statutory or constitutional right, and (2) the unlawfulness of their conduct was ‘clearly established

Commonwealth v. Scott

503 Pa. 624 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 30, 1983

When the Commonwealth refused to grant immunity, the trial court found that although it did not have the power to grant judicial immunity to Hill, a new trial was warranted based on the contents of the unsworn post-trial … When dissecting a double hearsay statement, the reliability and trustworthiness of each declarant must be independently established.

Kwai Fun Wong v. United States

373 F.3d 952 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jun 25, 2004

The qualified immunity defense “ ‘shield[s] [government agents] from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … Whether the Law Was Clearly Established Even where a constitutional violation has occurred, whether an official asserting qualified immunity may be held liable “generally turns on the ‘objective legal reasonableness’ of the

Ross v. Beckham County Board of County Commissioners

61 F. App'x 620 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Mar 31, 2003

able to prove, but whether certain given facts showed a violation of “clearly established” law. … “The doctrine of qualified immunity shields individual government officials performing discretionary functions ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or

Dearmon v. Burgess

388 F.3d 609 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Nov 8, 2004

R.Crim.P. 41 and state law did not constitute a § 1983 violation because the officers had not violated clearly established constitutional law. … If so, we next "ask whether the right was clearly established." Id.

Warnock v. Pecos County, Texas

116 F.3d 776 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jul 3, 1997

The judges filed a response in which they argued that they were entitled to qualified immunity. … Clearly established law will not defeat qualified immunity if “an objectively reasonable view of the facts” might lead an official not to realize that he was breaking the law. Matherne v.

Abilio Hernandez v. Jason Boles

949 F.3d 251 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jan 30, 2020

We therefore turn to whether the law was clearly established. 2. Clearly Established Right This brings us to the clearly-established prong of the qualified immunity inquiry. … But, to overcome qualified immunity, the clearly established law must be specific enough “to put a reasonable officer on notice that the conduct at issue was unconstitutional.” Lewis, 779 F.3d at 417.

Andy Thayer v. Ralph Chiczewski

705 F.3d 237 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Sep 18, 2012

“Qualified immunity protects public officials from liability for damages if their actions did not violate clearly established rights Nos. 10-1974 & 10-2064 15 of which a reasonable … “Qualified immunity shields government officials from civil damages liability unless the official violated a statu- tory or constitutional right that was clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct.” Id.

Wilson v. Poulos

697 F. Supp. 2d 1192 · District Court, S.D. California · Mar 2, 2010

Defendant Poulos’s entitlement to qualified immunity is clear under the second prong of the Katz test. 1 The “clearly established” inquiry requires the Court to look to the time of the events in question. … Since this right was not clearly established at the time of Plaintiffs incarceration, Defendant Poulos is entitled to qualified immunity.

Soong v. University of Hawaii at Hilo

72 Haw. 586 · Hawaii Supreme Court · Feb 11, 1992

right which was clearly *589 established at the time the defendant acted. … Under Siegert the protected right must be clearly established.

Graniczny v. City of El Paso, Tex.

809 F. Supp. 2d 597 · District Court, W.D. Texas · Mar 7, 2011

Qualified Immunity The doctrine of qualified immunity provides immunity from suit under § 1983 to government officials provided that “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional law of which … Thus, this analysis encompasses the two prongs of the qualified immunity analysis previously mentioned: whether there was a violation of a constitutional right and whether that right was clearly established at the time of

Fultz v. Whittaker

261 F. Supp. 2d 767 · District Court, W.D. Kentucky · Apr 2, 2003

Defendants argue that this evidence establishes that the Officers are entitled to qualified immunity on each of Plaintiffs remaining claims. … The final steps in the qualified immunity analysis require the Court to determine whether the right Whittaker allegedly violated was a “clearly established constitutional right of which a reasonable person would have known

Alburquerque v. Faz Alzamora

357 F. Supp. 2d 385 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Dec 9, 2004

Defendants additionally claim they are entitled to qualified immunity because their conduct did not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights a reasonable person would have known. … of which the plaintiff complains violated clearly established law.”

Matthew Schantz v. Benny Deloach

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Oct 26, 2021

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity “completely protects government offi- cials performing discretionary functions from suit in their individ- ual capacities unless their conduct violates clearly established USCA11 … As discussed below, we agree with the district court’s deci- sion to dispose of Plaintiff’s § 1983 claim on the clearly established prong of the qualified immunity analysis.

Green v. Thoryk

30 F. Supp. 2d 862 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 16, 1998

. ¶¶ 18, 22, qualify as a violation of a clearly established right of which a reasonable person should have known, the standard necessary to overcome qualified immunity. See Harlow v. … Refusal to provide redress for baseless claims does not violate a clearly established right.