Case law

Pleasant v. Lovell

654 F. Supp. 1082 · District Court, D. Colorado · Feb 12, 1987

Alternatively, defendants contend that they are entitled to qualified immunity because they did not violate clearly established constitutional rights which a reasonable investigator would have known. … Under Harlow , then, qualified immunity is established if it is proven that there was no violation of clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.

Patterson v. Armstrong County Children and Youth Services

141 F. Supp. 2d 512 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · May 22, 2001

Qualified Immunity — Substantive Due Process All defendants raise qualified immunity as a defense to plaintiffs’ civil rights claims. … The “clearly established law” element of qualified immunity is flexible enough to embrace clearly established law of other circuits. See, e.g., Turiano v.

Lisa Bukowski v. City of Akron, Patrick Summers and John Urbank, Lisa Bukowski v. City of Akron, Patrick Summers

326 F.3d 702 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 16, 2003

As governmental officials acting within the scope of their duty, Urbank and Summers can claim qualified immunity. … Qualified immunity is an affirmative defense shielding governmental officials from liability as long as their conduct does “not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would

Brockinton v. City of Sherwood

503 F.3d 667 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Oct 4, 2007

Qualified immunity protects governmental officials from liability for civil damages when they are performing discretionary functions and their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights … “[T]o withstand a motion for summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds, a civil rights plaintiff must (1) assert a violation of a constitutional right; (2)demonstrate that the alleged right is clearly established; and

Tucker v. Atwater

815 S.E.2d 34 · Supreme Court of Georgia · Jun 4, 2018

The Court of Appeals held that the school officials were entitled to qualified immunity because they did not violate any clearly established law. … We don't reach that question here because the absence of clearly established law entitles the school officials to qualified immunity. But there's no reason why the next such case should face the same problem.

Harris v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.

48 F. Supp. 3d 1025 · District Court, W.D. Tennessee · Sep 15, 2014

Qualified Immunity: Baker and Simmons “The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … Defendants assert that Baker and Simmons are entitled to qualified immunity because they did not violate a clearly established constitutional right.

Allen v. Kline

507 F. Supp. 2d 1150 · District Court, D. Kansas · Aug 23, 2007

Qualified immunity shields from *1156 liability government officials performing discretionary functions “if their conduct does not violate clearly established rights of which a reasonable government official would have known … If plaintiffs sufficiently allege the deprivation of a clearly established constitutional right, qualified immunity will not protect defendant.

Jenkins v. Cnty. of Washington

126 F. Supp. 3d 255 · District Court, N.D. New York · Aug 27, 2015

Defendants to believe that their acts did not violate any such clearly established rights. … a single case in this Circuit that rendered the rights in question clearly established.

Altman v. City of High Point

330 F.3d 194 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · May 20, 2003

immunity analysis and determine whether the right was clearly established. … It is certainly true that an officer is not entitled to qualified immunity when he violates clearly established federal law.

Hare Ex Rel. Hare v. City of Corinth

135 F.3d 320 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Mar 5, 1998

The bifurcated test for qualified immunity is quite familiar: (1) whether the plaintiff has alleged a violation of a clearly established constitutional right; and, (2) if so, whether the defendant’s … The second prong of the qualified immunity test is better understood as two separate inquiries: whether the allegedly violated constitutional rights were clearly established at the time of the incident;

Bowser v. Blair County Children and Youth Services

346 F. Supp. 2d 788 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 18, 2004

The Third Circuit has discussed qualified immunity in the following manner and terms: A right is “clearly established” for qualified immunity purposes only if “[t]he contours of the right” are “sufficiently clear that a reasonable … In determining whether qualified immunity is applicable, the Court must first determine for the purposes of the motion if, in fact, a constitutional right was violated, and second, if that right was “clearly established”

Marin v. McClincy

15 F. Supp. 3d 602 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 11, 2014

Witmer, 526 F.3d 104, 111-112 (3d Cir.2008) (declining to analyze the Constitutional claims and granting qualified immunity under the “clearly established” prong); Robinson v. … Id. 5 Assuming for the sake of argument that plaintiffs Constitutional rights were violated, defendants are nevertheless entitled to qualified immunity because the rights were not clearly established.

Billingsley v. St. Louis County

70 F.3d 61 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Nov 14, 1995

It held that government officials are generally immune from suit in performing discretionary duties if “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would … Accordingly, we cannot say that defendants should have known they were violating a clearly established right.

Peter Wenk v. Edward O'Reilly

783 F.3d 585 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 15, 2015

of qualified immunity, and (2) the issue appealed concerns not which facts the parties might be able to prove, but whether certain alleged facts reflect a violation of clearly established law.” … Qualified Immunity “The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights

Geoffrey J. Waldau v. Merit Systems Protection Board

19 F.3d 1395 · Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · Mar 16, 1994

Such a case exists when a petitioner raises nonfrivolous allegations of controverted jurisdictional facts on which the MSPB’s jurisdiction is clearly established if these facts are proven. See, e.g., Burgess v. … It is clearly not for this court on appeal to consider for the first time the evidence of record to determine whether Waldau qualifies as a confidential employee.

Zahra v. Town of Southold

48 F.3d 674 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Feb 21, 1995

Qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … See Natale, 927 F.2d at 105 (“The threshold issue in determining the applicability of [the] qualified immunity defense is whether [the plaintiffs] had a ‘clearly established right’ to the permits at issue.”); see also Amsden

Dockery v. Tucker

73 F. Supp. 2d 224 · District Court, E.D. New York · Sep 24, 1998

As discussed above, Tucker is entitled to qualified immunity if plaintiffs rights were not clearly established, see Mitchell v. … As discussed above, defendant Tucker is entitled to qualified immunity if plaintiffs rights were not clearly established, see Mitchell v.

Santana v. Calderon

188 F. Supp. 2d 160 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Feb 14, 2002

The general rule regarding qualified immunity is that government officials are immune from suit when their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory authority or constitutional rights, which a reasonable person … qualified immunity.

Dobson v. McClennen

238 Ariz. 389 · Arizona Supreme Court · Nov 20, 2015

A. ¶ 8 The AMMA broadly immunizes registered qualifying patients for their medical use of marijuana, providing: A registered qualifying patient ... is not subject to arrest, prosecution or penalty in any manner, or denial … When read together, the statutory provisions suggest that the AMMA gives qualifying patients a limited defense rather than a general immunity in (A)(3) prosecutions. ¶ 18 We reject, however, Petitioners’ argument that qualifying

Ramos v. Carbajal

508 F. Supp. 2d 905 · District Court, D. New Mexico · Mar 31, 2007

When a defendant asserts a qualified immunity defense, the burden shifts to the plaintiff, who must establish: (i) that the defendant violated a constitutional right; and (ii) that the constitutional right violated was clearly … , the Court believes that Rodriguez would still be entitled to qualified immunity, because, in the context of this case, the proper application of clearly established law to the facts is unclear.