Case law

Joseph McNeil John Blankenship, Kevin O'DOnnell and United States of America

187 F.3d 263 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jul 20, 1999

In denying that motion, the district court noted that to establish immunity from suit, the FAA officials must demonstrate that the right that plaintiff claims was violated was not “clearly established” at the time of the … Neither did it examine whether any such rights were clearly established at the time of the investigation.

Metro. Dade County v. Chase Fed. Housing

737 So. 2d 494 · Supreme Court of Florida · Jun 10, 1999

In conjunction with the statewide program, the Legislature established a fund to clean sites contaminated by dry cleaning solvents. [2] The Act provides that the owners or operators of dry cleaning establishments, who could … CONCLUSION We find that the Legislature has clearly expressed its intent through the language of the statute as well as the structure and purpose of the Act to apply the immunity provisions found in subsections 376.3078(3

McCabe v. MacAulay

545 F. Supp. 2d 857 · District Court, N.D. Iowa · Apr 11, 2008

thus not clearly established. 6 The *863 court denied the remainder of Special Agent Macaulay’s First Motion for Summary Judgment with leave to refile on December 1, 2006 — after the parties had an opportunity to conduct … qualified-immunity discovery.

The Presbyterian Church (u.s.a.) v. The United States of America

870 F.2d 518 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Apr 13, 1989

IV QUALIFIED IMMUNITY The district court held below that the individual INS agents named as defen *527 dants are entitled to qualified immunity. We agree. … Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, federal officials are immune from liability for damages “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person

Lanigan v. Village of East Hazel Crest

913 F. Supp. 1202 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jan 26, 1996

“The doctrine of qualified immunity shields public officials ... from damages unless their conduct was unreasonable in light of clearly established law.” Elder v. … Additionally, the doctrine of qualified immunity shields all three officers because their conduct was not unreasonable in light of clearly established law at that time.

Doe v. Hamilton Cnty. Bd. of Educ.

329 F. Supp. 3d 543 · District Court, E.D. Tennessee · Aug 6, 2018

unreasonable in light of the clearly established constitutional right." … To overcome qualified immunity, the plaintiff must demonstrate the right allegedly violated was "clearly established" at the time of the violation. Pearson , 555 U.S. at 236 , 129 S.Ct. 808 .

Ramirez v. Holmes

921 F. Supp. 204 · District Court, S.D. New York · Mar 31, 1996

“Even where the plaintiffs federal rights and the scope of the official’s permissible conduct are clearly established, the qualified immunity defense protects a government actor if it was ‘objectively reasonable’ for him … For Ramirez to defeat Holmes’s use of the qualified immunity shield, he must demonstrate that he possessed a clearly established constitutional right with respect to his claims.

Shaw v. Stroud

13 F.3d 791 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Jan 6, 1994

Government officials have qualified immunity for discretionary functions so long as “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … Stroud Because of the nature of § 1983 supervisory liability, the plaintiffs must make several separate showings to demonstrate that Stroud lacked qualified immunity: (1) it was “clearly established” at the time of Morris

Leang v. Jersey City Board of Education

198 N.J. 557 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Apr 16, 2009

The panel concluded that their actions fell outside the protections of qualified immunity because they violated plaintiffs clearly established Fourteenth Amendment rights to liberty and due process. See Saucier v. … We begin with a brief overview of the TCA and the qualified immunity it confers.

Nicholas C. Omdahl, Roger C. Omdahl, and Linda Omdahl v. David E. Lindholm and Michael G. Stoffel

170 F.3d 730 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Mar 15, 1999

It is also the key dispute as to whether the Omdahls established the existence of an alleged constitutional violation and, thus, whether they can successfully refute the qualified immunity defense. … The qualified immunity defense places the burden of establishing the existence of the alleged constitutional violation on the Omdahls. See Clash, 77 F.3d at 1047 .

Ayotte v. Barnhart

973 F. Supp. 2d 70 · District Court, D. Maine · Sep 24, 2013

immunity because they violated clearly established law by refusing to address the increase in padlock assaults in 2010. … the right was ‘clearly established’ at the time of the defendant’s alleged violation.”

Frank Zavaro v. Thomas A. Coughlin, Iii, C.R. Homrighouse

970 F.2d 1148 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jul 31, 1992

We have previously articulated the standard for establishing a defense of qualified immunity. … Coughlin, 774 F.Supp. 189, 199-200 (S.D.N.Y.1991) (holding that a hearing officer is not entitled to qualified immunity for *1154 violating inmate’s clearly established right to an independent assessment of informants’ reliability

Losch v. Borough Of Parkesburg

736 F.2d 903 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jun 14, 1984

Kleindienst, 729 F.2d 267, 273 (3d Cir.1984). 26 Qualified immunity protects a defendant who failed to observe a right or a legal standard that was not clearly established when the defendant acted. … On the other hand, as the Harlow Court concluded, "[i]f the law was clearly established, the immunity defense ordinarily should fail," unless the defendant "claims extraordinary circumstances and can prove that he neither

Brown Ex Rel. Estate of Brown v. Chapman

814 F.3d 436 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Feb 19, 2016

The officers asserted that they were entitled to qualified immunity, and the City asserted that plaintiff could not establish municipal liability. Id. at 1 (Page ID #97). … If, for example, “the [City] ratified [the officers’] misconduct which, though unconstitutional, was not in violation of clearly-established law,” a court could find the officers immune but the City liable. Baker v.

Pearson v. Shriners Hospitals

133 F.4th 433 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Apr 2, 2025

immunity because the Former Employees have failed to cite a clearly established right. … Nonetheless, the Commissioner is entitled to qualified immunity because the Former Employees’ claims against her are not based on clearly established law. See Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 231 (2009).

Al-Turki v. Robinson

Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Aug 12, 2014

-2- motion for qualified immunity. … Defendant contends that even if her alleged actions violated Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment rights, she is entitled to qualified immunity because the law was not clearly established at the time of her alleged violation.

Hilliard v. Walker's Party Store, Inc.

903 F. Supp. 1162 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Oct 4, 1995

To defeat defendants’ claims of qualified immunity, plaintiffs must establish that defendant state officers deprived plaintiff Thomas Lee of a clearly established federal statutory or constitutional right while acting under … Although the third right was not clearly established at the time of commission, a municipality is not entitled to qualified immunity as is an individual state defendant. See Garner v.

Roger Fairley and Richard Gackowski v. Evan Fermaint, Noberto Bercasio, and Fred Coffey

482 F.3d 897 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Mar 19, 2007

It was clearly established long before the events of which plaintiffs complain that state actors may not assault witnesses in federal litigation. … Only if the answer is affirmative does the court inquire whether the official enjoys qualified immunity.

Van Emrik v. Chemung County Department of Social Services

220 A.D.2d 952 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Oct 26, 1995

Plaintiffs contend that questions of fact exist as to whether defendants are entitled to the qualified immunity from liability provided by Social Services Law § 419. … Here, the X rays were clearly not medically indicated.

Bingue v. Prunchak

512 F.3d 1169 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jan 15, 2008

Harris, — U.S. -, 127 S.Ct. 1769 , 1774 n. 2, 167 L.Ed.2d 686 (2007) (“Qualified immunity is ‘an immunity from suit rather than a mere defense to liability _’ Thus, ... an order denying qualified immunity is immediately appealable … “On the other hand, if a violation could be made out on a favorable view of the parties’ submissions, the next, sequential step is to ask whether the right was clearly established.” Id.