Case law

Bartell v. Lohiser

12 F. Supp. 2d 640 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Jul 1, 1998

whether the conduct of which the plaintiff complains violated clearly established law.” … Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity as to plaintiffs ADA and Rehabilitation Act claims because plaintiff has failed to show that defendants violated a clearly established right of which they should have known. 4

Yamaha Motor Manufacturing Corp. of America v. Kentucky, Finance & Administration Cabinet

403 F. Supp. 2d 601 · District Court, W.D. Kentucky · May 10, 2005

Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, “governmental officials performing discretionary functions are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or … If the law was not clearly established, the defendants may be protected from suit by qualified immunity as they could not have known that their conduct was illegal or unconstitutional.

Heard v. Bear

District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · Feb 6, 2020

Federal law as determined by [the] Supreme Court of the United States,” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1);3 (2) “resulted in a decision that . . . involved an unreasonable application of clearly established Federal law,” id.; or … Significantly, an “unreasonable application of” clearly established federal law under § 2254(d)(1) “must be objectively unreasonable, not merely wrong.” White v. Woodall, 134 S.

McCranie v. Gavinski

District Court, D. Colorado · Sep 24, 2024

Defendants provide no legal authority in support of their proposition that clearly established law for qualified immunity must originate from a case at the same procedural posture. … was clearly established”). Accordingly, the Court finds that Sergeant Acuna and Sergeant Gutierrez are entitled to qualified immunity on plaintiff’s first claim.

Garcia v. Dutchess County

43 F. Supp. 3d 281 · District Court, S.D. New York · Aug 21, 2014

“The second prong of the qualified-immunity analysis asks whether the right in question was ‘clearly established’ at the time of the violation.” See id. at 1866 . … to qualified immunity on the grounds that the law is not clearly established every time a novel method is used to inflict injury.”

Bell v. City of Cleveland

548 F. Supp. 2d 444 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Feb 19, 2008

In other words, any “objectively reasonable” action by a state officer, as assessed in the light of clearly established law at the time of the conduct at issue, will be protected by qualified immunity. … and 2) that the right violated was clearly established.

Carman v. City of Eden Prairie

622 F. Supp. 963 · District Court, D. Minnesota · Nov 27, 1985

Qualified immunity is an affirmative defense which shields public officials performing discretionary functions from civil damages if their conduct does “not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of … Fair-view is thus entitled to qualified immunity because its conduct did not violate any of plaintiff’s clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.

Smith v. Finch

324 F. Supp. 3d 1012 · District Court, E.D. Missouri · Jul 2, 2018

Under the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis, the Court must determine whether the right in question was "clearly established at the time of the defendant's alleged misconduct." … However, qualified immunity will protect an officer from liability for an arrest "if a reasonable officer could have believed [the arrest] to be lawful, in light of clearly established law and the information the [officers

WALKER v. REGAN

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 1, 2021

trooper was entitled to qualified immunity because his use of deadly force did not violate a clearly established right). … No. 201) where the Third Circuit Court of Appeals noted that, for the purposes of qualified immunity, “[t]o be clearly established, a right must be so apparent that ‘every reasonable official would understand that what

Mason-Funk v. City of Neenah

296 F. Supp. 3d 1006 · District Court, E.D. Wisconsin · Nov 1, 2017

In order to overcome a defense of qualified immunity, the plaintiff's allegations must describe a deprivation of a constitutional or statutory right and the right must be clearly established at the time of the defendants' … Before engaging the qualified immunity analysis, the Supreme Court remarked: "[I]t is again necessary to reiterate the longstanding principle that 'clearly established law' should not be defined 'at a high level of generality

Perez-Olivo v. Gonzalez

384 F. Supp. 2d 536 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Aug 26, 2005

The first prong of this test establishes that the qualified immunity defense provides government officials with a shield from liability “for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … After finding that there is a clearly established right, the second prong of the qualified immunity test examines the reasonableness of the defendant’s conduct in light of clearly established federal law. Malley v.

Hearn v. Rhay

68 F.R.D. 574 · District Court, E.D. Washington · Sep 26, 1975

to plaintiff’s burden of proving malice or unreasonable disregard of his clearly established constitutional rights. … Defendants argue that they seek immunity on the narrow basis of the extent of plaintiff’s “clearly established constitutional rights” at the time of the alleged civil rights violations and not on the basis of legal advice

Ali v. Oneida County District Attorney

District Court, N.D. New York · Oct 30, 2023

“By contrast, prosecutors receive only qualified immunity when performing ‘administrative duties and those investigatory functions that do not relate to an advocate’s preparation for the initiation of a prosecution or for … Kessler, 694 F.3d 161, 166 (2d Cir. 2012) (“ ‘[A]ctions taken as an investigator enjoy only qualified immunity.’ ”) (quoting Zahrey v. Coffey, 221 F.3d 342, 346 (2d Cir. 2000)).

Payne v. County of Humboldt

655 F. Supp. 1341 · District Court, N.D. California · Mar 18, 1987

In other words, defendants who act pursuant to their official duties may still be liable under section 1983 if they act unreasonably or in violation of clearly established laws. … To deny him qualified immunity protection unless he goes further and demonstrates that his actions were above the benchmark of legal good faith, would make the concept of qualified immunity a meaningless embellishment.

Alexander v. Margolis

921 F. Supp. 482 · District Court, W.D. Michigan · Nov 1, 1995

Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 , 102 S.Ct. 2727 , 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982), the Court held that a defense of qualified immunity depends upon the reasonableness of an official's conduct, as measured by reference to clearly established … In his response to defendants’ claim of qualified immunity, he has not alleged how the defendants’ actions alleged in his complaint have violated clearly established law.

Fisher v. Dallas County

299 F.R.D. 527 · District Court, N.D. Texas · Apr 18, 2014

“Even if the government official’s conduct violates a clearly established right, the official is nonetheless entitled to qualified immunity if his conduct was objectively reasonable.” Wallace v. … See Morin, 77 F.3d at 120 (“Public officials are entitled to qualified immunity from suit under § 1983 unless it is shown by specific allegations that the officials violated clearly established law.”); Schultea, 47 F.3d at

Dunlap v. Hilgenkamp

82 F. Supp. 2d 1052 · District Court, D. Nebraska · Jan 25, 2000

. § 1983 for their performance of discretionary functions are entitled to a qualified immunity defense if they prove that their conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … Qualified immunity is a question of law.

Staneart v. Board of Trustees of Ransom Memorial Hospital

684 F. Supp. 1573 · District Court, D. Kansas · Apr 18, 1988

Staneart responds that qualified immunity is inapplicable because clearly established law proscribed the defendants’ conduct. As stated above, the court will consider this motion as a motion for summary judgment. … If the plaintiff fails to convince the court that the law was clearly established, the defendant is entitled to qualified immunity and judgment must be entered in his favor. Burk v.

Boyd v. District of Columbia

526 F. Supp. 2d 44 · District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 26, 2007

Qualified immunity “shield[s officials] from liability for civil damages insofar as [the official’s] conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have … Thus the right is not clearly established, and Robinson is entitled to qualified immunity from this claim. Accordingly, the court dismisses the plaintiffs’ constitutional claim.

Carl v. Angelone

883 F. Supp. 1433 · District Court, D. Nevada · Apr 19, 1995

Angelone’s instant motion for summary judgment argues that he is entitled to qualified immunity because the bfoq exception to Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(e)(l), is not clearly established. … Qualified immunity, a hybrid species of affirmative defense and immunity, places the initial burden on the plaintiff to prove that the right allegedly violated was clearly established. 3.