Case law

Berry v. Craftsman

148 N.J. Super. 366 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Mar 17, 1977

The intent of this statute is clearly to establish immunity for all governmental bodies except in conformity with the statute, N. J. S. A. 59 :1-2. English v. Newark Housing Auth., 138 N. J. Super. 425, 428 (App. … A. 59 :1-2 clearly dictates that defendant may not be held liable.

Crosby v. University of Kentucky

863 F.3d 545 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 17, 2017

The doctrine of qualified immunity protects “government officials performing discretionary functions ,.. from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … The closest precedent in this circuit, in fact, noted that this area of law was not so clearly established as to overcome the defense of qualified immunity. See Garvie v.

Ramirez-Lluveras v. Pagan-Cruz

833 F. Supp. 2d 151 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Oct 3, 2011

Qualified Immunity The qualified immunity doctrine is an “escape hatch” from a state actor’s liability under section 1983. … A state actor does not benefit from qualified immunity if: (1) the plaintiff makes out a violation of a constitutional right that (2) was “clearly established” at the time of the alleged violation. Id.

Hill v. Taconic Developmental Disabilities Services Office

57 F. App'x 9 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jan 2, 2002

‘good faith’ qualified immunity cannot attach.” … ’t do it’ or that it was objectively reasonable for him to believe that his action did not violate clearly established law.”

Cruise-Gulyas v. Minard

918 F.3d 494 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Mar 13, 2019

Minard filed an interlocutory appeal, arguing that he is entitled to qualified immunity because, even assuming he violated Cruise-Gulyas's constitutional rights, those rights were not clearly established. … Qualified immunity protects police from personal liability unless they violate a person's clearly established constitutional or statutory rights. Kisela v.

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.

Smith v. Daniel

452 S.W.3d 575 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Dec 11, 2014

clearly established and raised a genuine issue of fact as to whether the official would have known that the conduct violated that clearly established right. … her actions did not violate clearly established principles of law of which a reasonable person would have knowledge.

Brown v. Gammage

District Court, W.D. Arkansas · Apr 12, 2022

Qualified immunity requires a two-pronged analysis: “whether the plaintiff has stated a plausible claim for violation of a constitutional or statutory right and whether the right was clearly established at the time of … Defendant is entitled to qualified immunity. Based on this finding, the Court need not determine whether an implicated right was clearly established at the time.

Thompson v. Clarke

848 F. Supp. 1452 · District Court, D. Nebraska · Apr 14, 1994

established” constitutional rights such that the prison officials are not protected by qualified immunity from an award of damages in a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. … Plaintiffs correctly point out that for purposes of qualified immunity, in deciding whether something is “clearly established” the court is to examine whether there is a degree of factual correspondence between previous cases

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.

Joseph E. Jackson/W. Va. Dept. of Trans. v. Joseph Wayne Belcher

232 W. Va. 513 · West Virginia Supreme Court · Sep 26, 2013

Va. 743, 310 S.E.2d 675 (1983), serves to obliterate the immunity clearly granted under West Virginia Code § 15-5-11(a). … articulated by the Arkansas Supreme Court: “[W]hile absolute immunity ‘bars a suit at the outset,’ qualified immunity ‘is in the nature of an affirmative defense.’”

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.

Hamilton ex rel. Hamilton v. Cannon

864 F. Supp. 1332 · District Court, M.D. Georgia · Sep 13, 1994

violated a clearly established constitutional right defined in Wide-man he is not entitled to qualified immunity. *1337 Applying the test enumerated in Courson v. … Lacking a clearly established right the Courson test cannot be satisfied, and so Brown is entitled to qualified immunity. C.

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.

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.

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”

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

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.

Rothschild v. Grottenthaler

716 F. Supp. 796 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jul 12, 1989

Qualified Immunity Finally, the defendants argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity under the standard established in Harlow v. … Only the individual defendant, Charles Grotten-thaler, may be eligible for qualified immunity. The good faith immunity created by Harlow applies only to “government officials performing discretionary functions.”

Estate of Young v. Martin

70 F. App'x 256 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 26, 2003

of clearly established law.” … Thus, it is taught that the “threshold inquiry a court must undertake in a qualified immunity analysis is whether [the] plaintiffs allegations, if true, establish a constitutional violation.” 1 Hope v.