Case law

Tripp v. Department of Defense

173 F. Supp. 2d 58 · District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 30, 2001

Defendants Did Not Violate Clearly Established Law Most executive officials are immune from suits alleging constitutional and statutory violations unless they violate “clearly established” statutory or constitutional rights … In discussing the qualified immunity standard, those courts have focused primarily on the question of a violation of clearly established law. See, e.g., Anderson v.

Thibodeaux v. City of Port Arthur

783 F. Supp. 299 · District Court, E.D. Texas · Jan 24, 1992

insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known, Harlow v. … The court is to determine immunity from suit based on the pleadings applying an “objective legal reasonableness” test, assessing the action in the light of the legal rules that were “clearly established” at the time it occurred

Wheeler v. Marengo

District Court, S.D. California · Nov 13, 2019

Appx. 647, 649 (9th Cir. 2007) (“The law in this circuit 6 is clearly established that ‘a prison official acts with deliberate indifference when he 7 ignores the instructions of the prisoner’s treating physician … Defendants’ Entitlement to Qualified Immunity 8 The Supreme Court has set forth a two-part analysis for resolving government 9 officials’ qualified immunity claims. See Saucier v.

Lytle v. Brewer

77 F. Supp. 2d 730 · District Court, E.D. Virginia · Dec 22, 1999

Qualified immunity protects government officials performing discretionary functions from civil liability so long as their conduct does not violate a clearly established statutory or constitutional right of which a reasonable … Brewer argues that if the plaintiffs’ rights were violated, they were not clearly established, and therefore, he should be entitled to qualified immunity.

Jackson Ex Rel. Jackson v. Nix

477 F. Supp. 2d 918 · District Court, M.D. Tennessee · Jan 23, 2007

Qualified immunity Defendants assert they are protected by qualified immunity against the claims brought against them by the minor Plaintiff. … The Motion will be DENIED IN PART on the issue of qualified immunity so that Plaintiff Keely Jackson may have an opportunity to plead, if she can, specific factual allegations underlying any clearly-established constitutional

Peavy v. Dallas Independent School District

57 F. Supp. 2d 382 · District Court, N.D. Texas · Aug 31, 1999

Qualified Immunity Defendant Kress contends that he is entitled to qualified immunity for the al~ leged violation of the Act and the alleged constitutional violation. … Conversely, an official’s conduct is not protected by qualified immunity if, in light of clearly established pre-existing law, it was apparent the conduct, when undertaken, would be a violation of the right at issue.

Jackson v. Government of the District of Columbia

District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 11, 2024

“Even if there is a genuine dispute about the reasonableness of an officer’s use of force, he is protected by qualified immunity unless his force violated clearly established law.” Hedgpeth v. … Officer Lombardini asserts that he is entitled to qualified immunity. Def.’s Mot. at 14–15. Jackson contends that the officer violated clearly established law and is not entitled to qualified immunity.

Washington v. Smith

District Court, E.D. Louisiana · Nov 8, 2022

Qualified Immunity “Governmental officers sued in their individual capacity are entitled to qualified immunity insofar as their conduct ‘did not violate clearly established … Under the law of qualified immunity, a governmental officer may commit a constitutional violation but nevertheless be immune from suit if it was not “clearly established,” at the time that he acted, that he was

Heaney v. Roberts

147 F. Supp. 3d 600 · District Court, E.D. Louisiana · Dec 2, 2015

Roberts’ contention - with respect to qualified immunity is that his actions were objectively reasonable, and that on September 18, 2013, the law was not clearly established such that the actions he took constituted a First … The qualified immunity analysis is a two-step inquiry. First, a court must decide whether a plaintiffs allegation, if true, establishes a violation of a clearly established constitutional right. Wyatt v.

Young v. City of Providence

396 F. Supp. 2d 125 · District Court, D. Rhode Island · Nov 2, 2005

Camilo-Robles, 151 F.3d at 6 . 5 More specifically, “the ‘clearly established’ prong of the qualified immunity inquiry is satisfied when (1) the subordinate’s actions violated a clearly established constitutional right, and … The Second Prong: Clearly Established Law The second prong of the qualified immunity analysis “deals with fair warning; it asks whether the law was clearly established at the time of the constitutional violation.”

Kopec v. Tate

230 F. Supp. 2d 619 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 21, 2002

Defendant asserts a defense of qualified immunity. … must be “clearly established.”

Guilford v. Frost

269 F. Supp. 3d 816 · District Court, W.D. Michigan · Aug 18, 2017

At a minimum, Sergeant Frost is entitled to qualified immunity because the law was not clearly established at the time of the stop. … Young, 780 F.3d 998, 1010 (10th Cir. 2015) (“reciting the overarching requirement of probable cause does not pass muster in a qualified-immunity clearly-established-law assessment”).

Hare v. City of Corinth, Miss.

949 F. Supp. 456 · District Court, N.D. Mississippi · Nov 22, 1996

The first step in the inquiry of the defendants’ claim of qualified immunity is whether the plaintiff has alleged the violation of a clearly established right. Siegert v. … Dec. 16, 1994). 1) Was the law clearly established?

Crehan v. Davis

713 F. Supp. 2d 688 · District Court, W.D. Michigan · May 18, 2010

“Ordinarily, a Supreme Court or Sixth Circuit [Court of Appeals] decision on point is necessary” to clearly establish the right in the relevant context and defeat qualified immunity. See Reynolds v. … With no clearly established law in place .... ”)). 10 *697 This means that Crehan cannot defeat Officer Davis’s qualified-immunity defense w+nt “clearly establishing” her general Fourth Amendment right to be free from excessive

Silagyi v. Independent School District No 12

District Court, W.D. Oklahoma · Jun 30, 2023

The Court may consider both prongs of the qualified immunity analysis even though Defendants’ arguments focus on the “clearly established” prong. … Moreover, for purposes of the “clearly established” prong of qualified immunity (discussed below), the block quote Plaintiffs cite is insufficient to “create a clearly established weight of authority.” Sandberg v.

Roe v. Fryer

District Court, M.D. Florida · Oct 25, 2024

that they violated a clearly established constitutional right. … the qualified immunity privilege, even in the absence of case law.

Wilson v. Kittoe

229 F. Supp. 2d 520 · District Court, W.D. Virginia · Nov 7, 2002

Clearly Established The Fourth Amendment right to be free from arrest in the absence of probable cause is clearly established. See Henderson, 223 F.3d at 273 . … But, “if the test of ‘clearly established law' were to be applied at this level of generality, ... plaintiffs would be able to convert the rule of qualified immunity ... into a rule of virtually unqualified liability.”

McLaine v. Lackawanna County

30 F. Supp. 3d 316 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 3, 2014

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_ [C]ourts may … grant qualified immunity on the ground that a purported right was not clearly established by prior case law, without resolving the often more difficult question whether the purported right exists at all....

Tofano v. Reidel

61 F. Supp. 2d 289 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Aug 11, 1999

To this effect, government officials, performing discretionary functions, are afforded qualified immunity from suit “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … Having found the conduct of the officers to be objectively reasonable, plaintiff has not alleged a violation of a clearly established constitutional right and the officers are entitled to qualified immunity. Cf.

Church v. Anderson

249 F. Supp. 3d 963 · District Court, N.D. Iowa · Apr 17, 2017

Qualified Immunity 1. Standards for qualified immunity Defendants also seek summary judgment on Church’s claims on the basis of qualified immunity. … Id. at 243-45 , 129 S.Ct. 808 ; accord Bishop, 723 F.3d at 961-62 (starting and ending its analysis of qualified immunity with the second prong of the analysis, the “clearly established right” determination); Hess v.