Case law

Juan Angel Torres v. United States

200 F.3d 179 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Dec 29, 1999

Ct. 2393 (1999). 16 Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, "[g]overnment officials performing discretionary functions are`shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established … The inquiry when a defendant claims qualified immunity is "whether a reasonable officer could have believed that his or her conduct was lawful, in light of the clearly established law and the information in the officer's

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.

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.”

Stanley Joseph v. Kenneth Allen

712 F.3d 1222 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Apr 15, 2013

Qualified immunity shields law enforcement officers from suit if they “[did] not violate [a] clearly established statutory or constitutional right[] of which a reasonable person would have known.” Gorra v. … However, qualified immunity allows officers to make reasonable errors, Habiger v.

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 .

Massi v. Flynn

254 F. App'x 84 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Nov 16, 2007

Our jurisdiction under the collateral order doctrine is limited to whether, as a matter of law, Flynn is entitled to qualified immunity “either because the law was not clearly established or because, on the facts assumed … Instead, we ask only “whether the facts alleged ... support a claim of violation of clearly established law.” Id. at 528 n. 9, 105 S.Ct. 2806 .

James E. Duncan, Cross-Appellee v. Mr. & Mrs. Harold Peck, Cross-Appellants, Highland Coal & Chemical Corporation

844 F.2d 1261 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 25, 1988

Harlow made clear that this is an objective test, and that if the right was not clearly established, the defendant is entitled to immunity, and the court should dismiss the case without further discovery. 6 Yet the underlying … Clearly, the important policy reasons for granting immunity from suit to government officials would not extend to private parties, who can be adequately protected from liability by merely establishing an affirmative good

Taylor Ex Rel. Estate of Mason v. Adams

221 F.3d 1254 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 11, 2000

her qualified immunity. … See, e.g., Layne, 119 S.Ct. at 1695 (holding defendants entitled to qualified immunity despite their unconstitutional conduct because of the lack of clearly established, preexisting law governing that conduct).

Sabrina Jordan v. John Howard

987 F.3d 537 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Feb 3, 2021

a genuine dispute of material fact for trial and that the officers were protected by qualified immunity—because they did not violate McShann’s clearly established rights by using deadly force in response to threatened deadly … The district court found that Defendants were entitled to qualified immunity because they did not violate McShann’s clearly established constitutional rights and their use of deadly force was objectively reasonable.

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.

Don Meadows v. Rockford Housing Authority

861 F.3d 672 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jun 30, 2017

Qualified immunity protects state officials from liability for civil damages unless the plaintiff can show “(1) that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was ‘clearly established … A right is clearly established when existing precedent has placed the right’s existence “beyond debate.” Reichle v. Howards, 132 S. Ct. 2088, 2093 (2012).

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.

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.

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.

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.

Stephen Buckley v. J. Michael Fitzsimmons

20 F.3d 789 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jun 7, 1994

a particular right was not “clearly established” at the time of the defendant’s acts because it was and is not “established” at all. … Thus there cannot be absolute immunity. But qualified immunity is available unless the acts violated “clearly established” constitutional norms. Harlow, 467 U.S. at 818, 102 S.Ct. at 2738 ; Anderson v.

Levine v. Roebuck

550 F.3d 684 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Dec 4, 2008

The court then granted Youngs qualified immunity because “the law of the Eighth Circuit was not clearly established at the time of [her] actions.” In Saucier v. … But that proposition was not clearly established by those cases, or by any other.

Krogh v. Sweeney

195 F. Supp. 3d 1049 · District Court, D. Minnesota · Jul 14, 2016

Sweeney argues that he is immune from suit under the doctrine of qualified immunity. … “[QJualified immunity protects [law enforcement] officers from personal liability under § 1983 insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established ... constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have

Freeman v. Blair

862 F.2d 1330 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jan 30, 1989

See 793 F.2d at 171-73. 3 We turn to the issues of qualified immunity. … defendants are entitled to qualified immunity with respect to plaintiffs' claims concerning defendants' failure to obtain a search warrant, and that none of the defendants is entitled to qualified immunity with respect to

Mayberry v. Spicer

808 F. Supp. 563 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Nov 24, 1992

A Defendant has “qualified immunity unless Plaintiff’s rights were so clearly established when the acts were committed that any officer in the Defendant’s position, measured objectively, would have clearly understood that … To prevail over a claim *567 of qualified immunity, Plaintiff must set forth a particular and clearly established violation. Garvie v. Jackson, 845 F.2d 647, 650 (6th Cir.1988).