-
455 F.3d 186 Third Circuit July 25, 2006 No. 05-1930
We are asked to determine whether, for the purposes of qualified immunity, the conduct alleged by Williams constituted a violation of his “clearly established” rights.
‘clearly established’ law.”
Long, 72 F.3d 70, 72-74 (8th Cir.1995) (denying qualified immunity because Muslim inmates had a clearly established right not to be forced to handle pork); Kenner v.
-
141 F.4th 76 Third Circuit June 18, 2025 No. 23-1373
established, as required for qualified immunity.
The Court noted that Defendants could re-raise qualified immunity once limited discovery uncovered the facts necessary to meaningfully assess whether they acted reasonably in light of clearly established law.
Stringer’s clearly established constitutional rights.” Opening Br. 25, 28 (emphasis added). But that conflates the two prongs of qualified immunity.
-
257 F.3d 309 Third Circuit July 19, 2001 No. 99-3019Cited by 315 Concurring in Part, Dissenting in Part · Nygaard
*331 It is now axiomatic that the doctrine of qualified immunity bars government officials from liability for damages unless they disobeyed “clearly established] statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would
Debates over defendants’ qualified immunity typically turn on this “clearly established right” clause.
were clearly established ... ’ Davis , in short, concerned not the authorities a court may consider in determining qualified immunity, but this entirely discrete question: Is qualified immunity defeated where an appellee violates
-
814 F.3d 164 Third Circuit February 19, 2016 No. 15-1448
This definition is too broad for purposes of qualified immunity, however. We must frame clearly established law “in light of the specific context of the case, not as a broad general proposition.” Saucier v.
This is why caseworkers are protected by qualified immunity unless clearly established law puts them on notice that their conduct is a violation of the Constitution.
In this case, there was no such clearly established law, and qualified immunity covers the Division’s caseworkers. We thus reverse the decision of the District Court and remand for it to enter judgment in their favor. .
-
841 F.3d 170 Third Circuit October 24, 2016 No. 15-2723
Discussion 3 Qualified immunity shields government actors from suit “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”
To defeat qualified immunity, the right purportedly violated must be so. clearly established that every reasonable official would have understood that what he is doing violates that right.
Under the high standard for “clearly established” law, that is enough to defeat the Plaintiffs’ challenge to qualified immunity. Y.
-
603 F.3d 243 Third Circuit April 22, 2010 No. 05-4430
We can determine whether Thompson is entitled to qualified immunity under the “clearly established” prong of Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 , 121 S.Ct. 2151 , 150 L.Ed.2d 272 (2001).
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 of which *250
Qualified immunity is applicable unless the official’s conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right.
-
316 F.3d 257 Third Circuit January 21, 2003 No. 01-2955Cited by 346 Dissent · Ambro
The majority misconstrues the Supreme Court’s Eighth Amendment jurisprudence, and, a fortiori, wrongly deems its outcome “clearly established” for purposes of qualified immunity.
The Court also recognized, however, that prison officials are entitled to qualified immunity from suit unless their actions violated a clearly established constitutional right of the plaintiff.
established for qualified immunity purposes”).
-
957 F.3d 165 Third Circuit April 21, 2020 No. 18-1432
Qualified immunity protects government officials from being held liable for damages when their conduct does not violate a citizen’s clearly established rights.
Trooper Bartelt is entitled to qualified immunity because he did not violate Gibbons’s clearly established rights.
Ct. at 552 . 7 For qualified-immunity purposes, “clearly established rights are derived either from binding Supreme Court and Third Circuit precedent or from a ‘robust consensus of cases of persuasive authority in the Courts of
-
872 F.3d 165 Third Circuit September 22, 2017 No. 16-2821
Clearly established law for purposes of qualified immunity means that [t]he contours of the right must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that right.
In addressing the clearly established prong of the qualified immunity inquiry, we must define the right allegedly violated at the appropriate level of specificity. Sharp v.
We granted qualified immunity to the gym teacher, concluding that a child did not have a clearly established right to dry-drowning intervention protocols while participating in gym class. Id. at 641 .
-
409 F.3d 595 Third Circuit June 6, 2005 No. 03-1633Cited by 194 Concurrence · Smith
Whereas Bros-seau refers to the second prong of the Saucier test as addressing the “qualified immunity” issue, the majority refers to that prong as addressing “whether the right was clearly established.”
“Unless the plaintiffs allegations state a claim of violation of clearly established law, the Court has explained, a defendant pleading qualified immunity is *607 entitled to dismissal before the commencement of discovery.”
Thus, “[a] court evaluating a claim of qualified immunity must first determine whether the plaintiff has alleged a deprivation of a constitutional right at all, and if so, proceed to determine whether that right was clearly established
-
225 F.3d 290 Third Circuit August 21, 2000 No. 98-2041
We have phrased the inquiry for granting qualified immunity in terms of the defendant’s conduct: [I]t is not sufficient that the right at issue be clearly established as a general matter.
We hold, therefore, that Seip is not entitled to qualified immunity from Leah’s Fourth Amendment, § 1983 claim, because Seip should have reasonably known that his conduct would violate a clearly established right.
qualified immunity.
-
98 F.3d 116 Third Circuit October 18, 1996 No. 95-3599
The Court in Anderson held that to defeat qualified immunity it is not sufficient that the right at issue be clearly established as a general matter.
But with regard to appeals from denials of summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds our review is limited to determining "whether or not certain given facts showed a violation of 'clearly established' law." Johnson v.
But when the same officials invoke administrative processes with an illicit purpose, they are violating substantive due process guarantees and, at the same time, "clearly established" law. 6 Qualified immunity is defeated not because
-
463 F.3d 285 Third Circuit September 14, 2006 No. 05-2275
More specifically, the Individual Defendants claim that they are entitled to qualified immunity because the complaint does not contain factual allegations supporting a claim of violation of clearly established law.
complains violated clearly established law.”
Thus, “[ujnless the plaintiffs allegations state a claim of violation of clearly established law, a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal before the commencement of discovery.”
-
544 F. App'x 129 Third Circuit November 19, 2013 Nos. 12-4020, 12-4021Cited by 3 Unpublished
right was “clearly established.”
Kelly argues for an absolute rule prohibiting qualified immunity when the relevant law is clearly established. If that were the law, we would have said so the first time this case was before us.
In essence, qualified immunity may be granted when there is a breakdown in the legal fiction that *137 reasonably competent police officers know every clearly established law. See Amove, 624 F.3d at 535 .
-
800 F.3d 633 Third Circuit September 1, 2015 No. 14-3535
“Whether an asserted federal right was clearly established at a particular time, so that a public official who allegedly violated the right has no qualified immunity from suit, presents a question of law[]" Elder v.
We also take this opportunity to clarify Curley , which the District Court cited in declining to reach the “clearly established” prong of the qualified immunity analysis.
Under either test, however, the court may not deny a summary judgment motion premised on qualified immunity without deciding that the right in question was clearly established at the time of the alleged wrongdoing.
-
577 F.3d 186 Third Circuit August 14, 2009 No. 07-4267
If the court concludes that the defendant’s conduct did violate a clearly established constitutional or statutory right, then it must deny the defendant the protection afforded by qualified immunity. Williams v.
And in light of Pearson , we need not reach this issue, as we find that, under the “clearly established” prong of the Saucier test, defendants should be afforded qualified immunity with respect to this claim.
See Pearson, 129 S.Ct. at 822 (forgoing the first Saucier step and finding the defendants “are entitled to qualified immunity because [their conduct] did not violate clearly established law”).
-
905 F.3d 138 Third Circuit September 20, 2018 No. 17-2172
The District Court granted Appellees' motion to dismiss, concluding that they were entitled to qualified immunity because Walker did not have a clearly established right to privacy in the content of her work emails.
"Qualified immunity shields government officials from civil damages liability unless the official violated a statutory or constitutional right that was clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct." 8 Qualified immunity
the importance of resolving qualified immunity questions at the earliest possible stage in litigation." 12 When considering whether a right is clearly established for purposes of qualified immunity, a court must, as a threshold
-
19 F.4th 279 Third Circuit November 23, 2021 No. 19-2390
Humphrey6 and that they are entitled to qualified immunity because Dennis has failed to allege a constitutional violation of clearly established law.
Second, they argue that qualified immunity attaches because the constitutional claims asserted do not involve rights that were clearly established in 1992, when the alleged violations took place.
Qualified immunity shields officials from civil liability “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”25 As noted, when analyzing
-
88 F.4th 275 Third Circuit December 6, 2023 No. 21-2963
The court rejected the Officers’ claims of qualified immunity because it found that Sherelle Thomas alleged sufficient facts to state her claims and both rights were clearly established at the time of the violations.
The Officers appealed, limited to the issue of qualified immunity.
Clearly Established Right However, before the Officers can be denied qualified immunity from being sued for deliberate indifference to a serious medical need, the constitutional right violated must be clearly established.37 In other
-
805 F.2d 126 Third Circuit November 14, 1986 No. 86-5057
We acknowledge that on these facts the distinction between an “I didn’t do it” defense and a qualified immunity defense based on the absence of a clearly established legal duty is not as clear cut as in most other contexts.
We also acknowledge that where, as is arguably the case here, the defendant’s alleged conduct did not breach a rule of liability, much less a clearly established rule of liability, the qualified immunity issue, in one sense, overlaps
Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. at 818, 102 S.Ct. at 2738, instructed that qualified immunity is unavailable if the defendant’s conduct violated “clearly established ... statutory rights” and, based on Davis v.
Showing the top 500 cases. Narrow your search or add filters to see more.