Case law

Thrower v. Pennsylvania

873 F. Supp. 2d 651 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · May 31, 2012

Plaintiff contends that qualified immunity does not apply because Decedent’s rights were clearly established at the time the Individual Defendants acted, even if it was uncertain at that time whether their actions would subject … Instantly, Defendants’ contention that it was not clearly established law that certain portions of the Medicaid Act create individually enforceable rights misses the qualified immunity mark.

Munroe v. City of Austin

300 F. Supp. 3d 915 · District Court, W.D. Texas · Mar 12, 2018

To overcome qualified immunity, a plaintiff must show that (1) the official violated a constitutional right, and (2) the constitutional right at issue was clearly established. *923 Saucier v. … Assuming, without deciding, that deploying his taser was an excessive use of force, Murphy is entitled to qualified immunity because doing so did not violate clearly established law.

Montez v. Romer

32 F. Supp. 2d 1235 · District Court, D. Colorado · Jan 21, 1999

Further, defendants contend that the individual defendants sued in their individual capacities are entitled to qualified immunity because it was not clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct that either the … Qualified Immunity The doctrine of qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions from individual liability under section 1983 where their actions do not violate clearly established statutory

Danese v. Asman

670 F. Supp. 729 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Sep 16, 1987

The Court in Anderson also held that the mere assertion of a clearly established right, at least in the context of the fourth amendment, is insufficient to defeat the qualified immunity defense. … Qualified immunity is not applicable.

Wilkins v. Palomino

District Court, D. Colorado · Dec 21, 2021

district court to rebut qualified immunity.”); Rojas v. … Absent this clearly established law, Defendant is entitled to qualified immunity. C.

Pinder v. Skero

375 F. Supp. 3d 725 · District Court, S.D. Texas · Mar 21, 2019

"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 a reasonable person … The Fifth Circuit has explained the "clearly established" prong as follows: Qualified immunity should not be denied unless the law is clear in the more particularized sense that reasonable officials should be "on notice that

Odhuno v. Reed's Cove Health & Rehab., LLC

355 F. Supp. 3d 1026 · District Court, D. Kansas · Dec 14, 2018

Thus, Mallen does not support a clearly established constitutional right that defeats Rose and Sunderraj's claims of qualified immunity. … The Court next examines the second prong of qualified immunity-whether the law was clearly established.

Jones v. Buckner

963 F. Supp. 2d 1267 · District Court, N.D. Alabama · Aug 9, 2013

Qualified immunity is applicable unless the official’s conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right.” Pearson v. … However, the Eleventh Circuit has “held time and again that clearly established general principles of law will seldom if ever suffice to strip a defendant of qualified immunity.” Harbert Intern., Inc. v.

Smith v. Peyman

93 F. Supp. 3d 738 · District Court, E.D. Kentucky · Mar 18, 2015

clearly established constitutional law. … The second prong of the qualified-immunity analysis asks whether the right in question was “clearly established” at the time of the violation. Hope v. Pelzer, 536 U.S. 730, 739 , 122 S.Ct. 2508 , 153 L.Ed.2d 666 (2002).

Zwalesky v. Manistee County

749 F. Supp. 815 · District Court, W.D. Michigan · Aug 16, 1990

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY All of the individual defendants that had contact with the decedent on the day of his death assert that they are immune from suit in the present action due to the doctrine of qualified immunity. … Although qualified immunity is somewhat akin to an affirmative defense, the defendant does not bear the burden of establishing that his alleged conduct did not violate clearly established law. Dominque v.

Ingram v. Cooper

163 F. Supp. 3d 1133 · District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · Feb 18, 2016

and the law supporting plaintiffs claims was. not clearly established. … For the purpose of qualified immunity, it is clearly established that discrimination against a person because of his or her race would be a clearly established violation of the person’s constitutional *1140 rights.

White v. Taylor

677 F. Supp. 882 · District Court, S.D. Mississippi · Jan 13, 1988

ground of qualified immunity. … qualified immunity.

Montanez v. Celaya

49 F. Supp. 3d 1010 · District Court, M.D. Florida · Sep 8, 2014

Qualifíed Immunity “Qualified immunity shields government officials from liability for civil damages for torts committed while performing discretionary duties unless their conduct violates a clearly established statutory … However, the Eleventh Circuit found that the police officer in question was entitled to qualified immunity because, at the time of McClish’s arrest, the law was not clearly established.

Wilson v. Jean

145 F. Supp. 3d 434 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 30, 2015

The Supreme Court teaches qualified immunity protects Defendant Officers from liability “when their conduct ‘does not violate clearly established ... constitutional rights’ a reasonable official, similarly situated, .would … on video and admitted by him is not clearly established.

Spann v. Indiana State of

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Sep 20, 2022

Defendants argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity “because they did not violate any right that was clearly established in July of 2020.” (ECF 83 at 1.) … “Whether an official is entitled to qualified immunity on a motion for summary judgment turns on whether the plaintiff has both (1) alleged that the official committed acts violating a clearly established right and (2)

Muhammad v. District of Columbia

881 F. Supp. 2d 115 · District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 8, 2012

Layne, 526 U.S. 603, 614 (1999) (holding that qualified immunity turns upon the “objective legal reasonableness of the officers' action, assessed in light of the legal rules that were clearly established … “[T]he protection of qualified immunity is available if ‘a reasonable officer could have believed that [his or her actions were] lawful, in light of clearly established law and the information the officers possessed.’ ”

Washington v. Starke

626 F. Supp. 1149 · District Court, W.D. Michigan · Jan 24, 1986

The real question in this case, as in all cases involving the claim of wralified immunity, is whether the conduct of the individual defendants violated a clearly established constitutional or statutory right, and if so, whether … For these reasons, I conclude that there was no clearly established constitutional or statutory law restricting the individual defendants’ discretionary conduct and, hence, the individual defendants are entitled to qualified

McGaughey v. City of Chicago

664 F. Supp. 1131 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Mar 18, 1987

Furthermore, he contends that the individual defendants cannot avail themselves of the affirmative defense of qualified immunity because their conduct constituted a violation of clearly established constitutional rights. … They also contend that the law regarding arrests for disorderly conduct was not clearly established at the time they arrested McGaughey so they are entitled to qualified immunity under Harlow v.

Brown v. Truelove

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Aug 26, 2020

“Qualified immunity attaches when an official's conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Kisela v. … In determining whether an official is entitled to qualified immunity, courts examine (1) whether “the official violated a statutory or constitutional right,” and (2) whether “the right was ‘clearly established’ at the

P.F. v. Mendres

21 F. Supp. 2d 476 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Sep 29, 1998

Generally speaking, “[ujnless plaintiffs allegations state a claim of a violation of clearly established law, a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal before the commencement of discovery.” … established right occurred; Judge Greenberg would have ended qualified immunity analysis at that stage of the inquiry).