Case law

Marriott v. USD 204, Bonner Springs-Edwardsville

289 F. Supp. 3d 1235 · District Court, D. Kansas · Sep 8, 2017

Defendants further claim that they are entitled to qualified immunity because it is not clearly established that video recording in a public classroom is a violation of constitutional rights. … A defendant is entitled to qualified immunity unless the plaintiff can show "(1) a reasonable jury could find facts supporting a violation of a constitutional right, which (2) was clearly established at the time of the defendant's

Roberts v. Source for Public Data

606 F. Supp. 2d 1042 · District Court, W.D. Missouri · Dec 1, 2008

“Clearly-established” rights are at issue in determining qualified immunity. See discussion of Qualified Immunity, infra. … Qualified Immunity Finally, Davis argues that Plaintiffs’ DPPA claim against him is barred by qualified immunity.

Mills v. City of Shreveport

58 F. Supp. 3d 677 · District Court, W.D. Louisiana · Sep 30, 2014

Qualified immunity shields government officials from liability in their performance of discretionary functions, unless their conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right.' See Ontiveros v. … clearly established right.

Valdez v. Farmon

766 F. Supp. 1529 · District Court, E.D. California · Jun 11, 1991

event to compel her to give up that clearly established right. … A defendant is entitled to a qualified immunity if: 1. the law allegedly violated was not clearly established (a legal issue); 2. assuming that the law was clearly established, a reasonable person in the same circumstances

Massey v. Banning Unified School District

256 F. Supp. 2d 1090 · District Court, C.D. California · Mar 28, 2003

If a violation has been alleged, a defendant is not entitled to qualified immunity if the right was clearly established at the time of the violation. Id. at 200-201, 121 S.Ct. 2151 . … In their motion, Defendants focus their qualified immunity argument on the contention that the right to be free of sexual orientation-based discrimination is not clearly established because there is no “closely analogous

Renalde v. CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER, COLORADO

807 F. Supp. 668 · District Court, D. Colorado · Dec 1, 1992

A § 1983 defendant enjoys qualified immunity unless he violated “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. … Therefore, this claim, even if cognizable, was not clearly established at the time of the alleged violation and Rathburn, Watts, and Organ are entitled to qualified immunity. VII.

Johnson v. Waters

317 F. Supp. 2d 726 · District Court, E.D. Texas · May 11, 2004

be clearly established at the time of the alleged violation. … If the law did not put the officer on notice that his conduct would be clearly unlawful, summary judgment based on qualified immunity is appropriate. Id.

Denno Ex Rel. Denno v. School Board of Volusia County

959 F. Supp. 1481 · District Court, M.D. Florida · Feb 3, 1997

Unless 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. Mitchell v. … In this case, the Court finds that Roberts and Wallace are entitled to dismissal on the basis of qualified immunity because the law is not so “clearly established” in such a “concrete and factually defined context” to make

Pitt v. District of Columbia

558 F. Supp. 2d 11 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 2, 2008

In engaging in a qualified immunity analysis, the Court “must determine whether a constitutional right has been violated before moving to the analysis of whether a right was ‘clearly established’ at the time of the defendant … Accordingly, Detective Bovino is entitled to qualified immunity on this claim.

Fijalkowski v. Wheeler

361 F. Supp. 3d 577 · District Court, E.D. Virginia · Feb 12, 2019

Yet importantly, the well-established, judicially-created 5 defense of qualified immunity shields federal and state officials from civil liability under § 1983"unless their actions violated 'clearly established statutory … qualified immunity from plaintiff's due process claim.

Hansen v. Lamontagne

808 F. Supp. 89 · District Court, D. New Hampshire · Nov 20, 1992

A government official exercising discretionary authority is entitled to qualified immunity in respect to § 1983 claims only if his or her conduct does not violate *92 “clearly established” statutory or constitutional rights … When a defendant moves for summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity, it is plaintiff’s burden to demonstrate defendant’s infringement of a “clearly established” federal right.

Kosta v. Connolly

709 F. Supp. 592 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 15, 1989

Qualified Immunity Defendants argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity for their actions taken against plaintiffs. In Harlow v. … Gable, 823 F.2d 723, 733 (3d Cir.1987) (defendants not entitled to qualified immunity where law clearly established that a public employee could not be demoted in retaliation for exercising his First Amendment rights).

Harris v. Dugger

757 F. Supp. 1359 · District Court, S.D. Florida · Jan 2, 1991

Qualified Immunity The Court next must consider the magistrate’s recommendation on the defendants’ claim of qualified immunity. … A determination of whether an official violated clearly established law itself requires the Court to make two inquiries. First, the Court must ascertain the law that was “clearly established.”

Valdez v. Roybal

186 F. Supp. 3d 1197 · District Court, D. New Mexico · May 12, 2016

Clearly Established Rights in the Qualified Immunity Analysis. … The Law Was Not Clearly Established and Roybal and Placencio are Entitled to Qualified Immunity.

Ermini v. Scott

249 F. Supp. 3d 1253 · District Court, M.D. Florida · Apr 6, 2017

Even if shooting plaintiff was a violation of the Fourth Amendment, Deputy Hamer is entitled to qualified immunity unless plaintiff establishes that Deputy Hamer violated a constitutional right that was “clearly established … The Fourth Amendment right was not clearly established in the specific context of this case. Therefore, even if plaintiffs Fourth Amendment right was violated, Deputy Hamer is entitled to qualified immunity. D.

Jordan v. Fox, Rothschild, O'Brien & Frankel

787 F. Supp. 471 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 27, 1992

Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 526 , 105 S.Ct. 2806, 2815 , 86 L.Ed.2d 411 (1985) (“Unless the plaintiffs allegations state a claim of violation of clearly established law, a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal … Harlow, 457 U.S. at 818 , 102 S.Ct. at 2738 . 12 In determining whether a constitutional right is clearly established for purposes of qualified immunity, a court must determine whether the contours of the right at the time

Brown v. Benefield

757 F. Supp. 2d 1165 · District Court, M.D. Alabama · Sep 29, 2010

The Eleventh Circuit recognizes three ways that a right may be clearly established for qualified immunity purposes: (1) case law with indistinguishable facts clearly establishes the constitutional right, (2) a broad statement … If this is not clearly established, then the Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity at this stage of the case.

Lawlor v. Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago

District Court, N.D. Illinois · Mar 30, 2019

Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 243 (2009) (holding that officers were entitled to qualified immunity where they “did not violate clearly established law”). … to qualified immunity on Plaintiffs’ Wiretap Act claim.

Waldon v. Borough of Upper Darby

77 F. Supp. 2d 655 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 9, 1999

The officers are entitled to qualified immunity from suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 if their conduct did not violate a clearly established statutory or constitutional right of Plaintiffs, of which a reasonable officer would … A qualified immunity claim is ordinarily decided by first determining whether a violation of a constitutional or statutory right is alleged, and then next determining whether that right was clearly established and would have

Roberts v. City of Forest Acres

902 F. Supp. 662 · District Court, D. South Carolina · Aug 21, 1995

not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … The touchstone of qualified immunity is the “ ‘objective legal reasonableness’ of the [officer’s] action assessed in light of the legal rules that were ‘clearly established’ at the time it was taken.”