Case law

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.

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.

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.

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”

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.

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.

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

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

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.

Galen v. County of Los Angeles

322 F. Supp. 2d 1045 · District Court, C.D. California · Jan 9, 2004

established at the time the search took place, the officers were entitled to the defense of qualified immunity. … “[A] plaintiff can only survive summary judgment on a defense claim of qualified immunity if the plaintiff can both establish a substantial showing of deliberate falsehood or reckless disregard and establish that, without

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.

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.

Burnham v. West

681 F. Supp. 1169 · District Court, E.D. Virginia · Jan 29, 1988

Here the Court, upon reconsideration, intentionally sweeps more broadly than in its earlier ruling on whether defendants violated "clearly established" constitutional rights. … If there are means to show that rights are clearly established other than by controlling precedent as required by Wallace v.

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.”

Fortunati v. Campagne

681 F. Supp. 2d 528 · District Court, D. Vermont · Dec 29, 2009

Under qualified immunity doctrine, government actors are not liable for damages unless they “violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. … Judge Sessions recently laid out the second step as follows: The second step of the qualified immunity analysis asks whether the officials’ actions violated “clearly established statutory or constitutional lights of which

Yoak v. Marshall University Board of Governors

223 W. Va. 55 · West Virginia Supreme Court · Dec 9, 2008

The appellees contend that the circuit court properly found that qualified immunity is applicable to the instant ease. … Therefore, unless there is a bona fide dispute as to the foundational or historical facts that underlie the immunity determination, the ultimate questions of statutory or qualified immunity are ripe for summary disposition

Nicholas v. Attorney General

584 Utah Adv. Rep. 13 · Utah Supreme Court · Aug 14, 2007

Because the provision is not clearly directed at remedying past gender discrimination, Hibbs does not apply. … Because neither the death of a daughter-in-law nor the assistance of a healthy adult child qualifies for family-care leave, Ms. Nicholas could only qualify for leave under the self-care provision of the FMLA. .

Hubbard v. Taylor

452 F. Supp. 2d 533 · District Court, D. Delaware · Sep 20, 2006

“Qualified immunity shields state officials from suit where their conduct ‘does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’ ” Id. (quoting Harlow v. … If the court concludes that the defendant’s conduct violated a clearly established constitutional or statutory right, then it must deny the defendant the protection afforded by qualified immunity. Id.