Case law

Richard H. Hatch, Jr. v. Department for Children, Youth and Their Families (State of Rhode Island), Steven Brown and Mary McKee Proposed

274 F.3d 12 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Dec 17, 2001

In Frazier , we upheld a grant of qualified immunity to social workers who had played a role in a family dispute. … In answering this question, it is important to understand the parameters of the qualified immunity defense.

Soto v. Bushmaster Firearms International, LLC

139 F. Supp. 3d 560 · District Court, D. Connecticut · Oct 9, 2015

The record establishes that the immunity provided by this statute will also be asserted with regard to the claims against the other defendants. 5 The “no possibility” standard used to assess claims of fraudulent joinder aims … In contending that the plaintiffs’ claims against Riverview are clearly baseless in light of the immunity provided by the PLCAA, defendants -ask this Court to determine that the -word “use” in the negligent entrustment exception

Kitchen Ex Rel. the Estate of Kitchen v. Dallas County

759 F.3d 468 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jul 17, 2014

earliest possible stage in litigation.’” 8 The two-part inquiry into qualified immunity is first “whether a constitutional right would have been violated on the facts alleged,” and second “whether the right was clearly established … As a general matter, moreover, this rule constituted clearly established law for the purposes of qualified immunity in this case.

Walton v. Ballard

District Court, S.D. West Virginia · Mar 30, 2018

established federal law.” … Johnson, 647 F.3d 87, 103 (4th Cir. 2011) (“The rule and analytical framework announced by the Supreme Court in Strickland ‘unquestionably qualifies as “clearly established” federal law under § 2254(d).’”

Canter v. County of Otsego

14 F. App'x 518 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 12, 2001

As the magistrate judge pointed out in his discussion of qualified immunity, the State Police defendants expressly admitted that the constitutional rights they are accused of violating were clearly established at the time … immunity[,] typically, the issue of whether the federal right allegedly infringed was clearly established.

Cotton v. Mansour

634 F. Supp. 1094 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Apr 11, 1986

To overcome the defense of qualified immunity it must appear that the defendant official violated clearly established constitutional or statutory rights of which a reasonable person would have known. ... … The Harlow test for qualified immunity applies to suits against state officials under § 1983. Id. at 818 n. 30, 102 S.Ct. at 2738 n. 30.

Figueroa-Rodriguez v. Lopez-Rivera

878 F.2d 1478 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Apr 25, 1989

Harlow, supra (government officials enjoy “qualified immunity” where the law does not “clearly” forbid their actions). … In Mendez-Palou, 813 F.2d at 1259 , this circuit said that the question in a “qualified immunity” case, such as this one, is “whether [at the time of dismissal] it was clearly established that employees in the particular

Jacobs v. West Feliciana Sheriff's Department

228 F.3d 388 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Oct 2, 2000

To determine whether an official is entitled to qualified immunity, we must determine: (1) whether the plaintiff has alleged a violation of a clearly established constitutional right; and (2) if so, … As noted above, we have observed that at least since 1989, it has been clearly established that officials will only be liable for episodic acts or omissions resulting in the violation of a detainee’s clearly established

Dean v. Munch

4 F. App'x 380 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Feb 14, 2001

To be considered “clearly established” for the purposes of qualified immunity analysis, “[t]he contours of the right must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that … A claim of immunity under the Idaho Tort Claims Act is not an immunity from suit, as qualified and absolute immunity are.

William Bell-Bey v. Beverly Williams

87 F.3d 832 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 1, 1996

The Donta court held, “If the law which the defendant is alleged to have violated is clearly established, then the qualified immunity defense should fail and discovery should proceed. … If the law is not clearly established, the defendant is immune.” Id. (citation omitted).

Barnhill v. Board of Regents of UW System

158 Wis. 2d 278 · Court of Appeals of Wisconsin · Sep 27, 1990

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY OF SHARP AND LEE The relevant question before us is the objective question whether a reasonable official could have believed that discharging Barnhill was lawful, in light of clearly established law and … [defendants] liable for compensatory damages, and even though plaintiffs rights were sufficiently well established to defeat defendant's claim of qualified immunity.

Ward v. Murphy

330 F. Supp. 2d 83 · District Court, D. Connecticut · Aug 16, 2004

More specifically, qualified immunity provides “substantial protection for caseworkers,” provided “it was objectively reasonable for them to believe that their acts” would not violate clearly established rights. … Even if the court were to assume a constitutional violation, the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity because the specific rights alleged by the plaintiff are not clearly established. See, e.g., Tenenbaum v.

Gooden v. Howard County Maryland

917 F.2d 1355 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Nov 9, 1990

A The defense of qualified immunity generally protects “government officials performing discretionary functions ... from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … was no clearly established law guiding their conduct.

Sanabria v. Martins

568 F. Supp. 2d 220 · District Court, D. Connecticut · Mar 26, 2008

not violated clearly established law.” … immunity, as a matter of well-established law.

Holeman v. City of New London

425 F.3d 184 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Sep 30, 2005

Our review at this juncture is limited, however, to "circumstances where the qualified immunity defense may be established as a matter of law." Cartier v. Lussier, 955 F.2d 841, 844 (2d Cir.1992). … III 11 Qualified immunity "shields police officers acting in their official capacity from suits for damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 , unless their actions violate clearly-established rights of which an objectively reasonable

Schwartz v. Gwinnett County

924 F. Supp. 2d 1362 · District Court, N.D. Georgia · Feb 15, 2013

A Qualified immunity of the 911 Defendants and Brown Qualified immunity protects government officials who perform discretionary functions from suits in their individual capacities, unless their conduct violates “clearly established … state actor as violating a clearly established constitutional right. 13 To the extent the, 911 Defendants and Brown have been sued in their individual capacities, they are entitled to qualified immunity for the Section 1983

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. HP Pelzer Automotive Systems, Inc. (TV2)

District Court, E.D. Tennessee · Mar 2, 2020

and defendant affidavits represented “nothing more than conflicting witness testimony”); Wayne, 36 F.3d at 530 (upholding district court’s denial of attorney fees where defendants won summary judgment on the basis of qualified … immunity, but plaintiffs also sued for injunctive relief, which was not barred by immunity); Beard v.

Riverdale Mills Corp. v. United States

337 F. Supp. 2d 247 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Mar 16, 2004

In evaluating a claim for qualified immunity, a court must determine: 1) whether the plaintiffs allegations, if true, establish a constitutional violation, 2) whether the right was clearly established at the time of the alleged … The answer to each inquiry must be affirmative to overcome a defense of qualified immunity. Id. The Court is underwhelmed by defendants’ arguments that they are entitled to qualified immunity.

Schneeweis v. Jacobs

771 F. Supp. 733 · District Court, E.D. Virginia · Jul 29, 1991

Where qualified immunity is raised as an affirmative defense to liability in a § 1983 action, the court must first address the threshold issue of whether the plaintiff has alleged “the violation of a clearly established constitutional … Schneeweis cannot overcome the defense of qualified immunity as she cannot establish that her suspension violated any clearly established constitutional rights of which a reasonable school official would have known or that

Grancio v. De Vecchio

608 F. Supp. 2d 362 · District Court, E.D. New York · Mar 27, 2009

Grancio’s favor) clearly establish these Defendants’ direct involvement in the murder of Nicholas Grancio in concert with Scarpa their informant and, demonstrate unequivocally a violation of the by then clearly established … Qualified Immunity A government official is entitled to qualified immunity “if he did not violate clearly established law or it was objectively reasonable for him to believe that he was not violating clearly established law