Case law

Kies v. City of Aurora

149 F. Supp. 2d 421 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jun 5, 2001

The Seventh Circuit has noted in the context of qualified immunity that if the plaintiffs’ initial pleadings themselves, taken as true, fail to adequately allege the violation of any clearly established right, dismissal for … The doctrine of qualified immunity shelters government officials from civil liability in their individual capacities as long as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which

Johnson v. Pearson

316 F. Supp. 2d 307 · District Court, E.D. Virginia · Mar 1, 2004

Qualified immunity protects government officials from civil damages in a § 1983 action “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have … If Plaintiffs rights were not clearly established, “the qualified immunity doctrine still provides a defendant officer with immunity from suit.” Jones, 325 F.3d at 526-527 .

Benckini v. Hawk

654 F. Supp. 2d 310 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 14, 2009

Under the defense of qualified immunity, “[gjovernment officials performing discretionary functions are ‘shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or … “A court presented with a claim of qualified immunity must examine both the law that was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation and the facts available to the officer at that time, and must then determine

Tschida v. Motl

250 F. Supp. 3d 709 · District Court, D. Montana · Apr 18, 2017

The Court may begin the qualified immunity analysis by considering first “whether1 theré is a-violation of-clearly established law . without determining whether a constitutional violation occurred.” … The Court also affirmed the magistrate judge’s ruling that the right was clearly established, and, therefore, qualified immunity was not available to the officials. Id.

Thompson v. Spikes

663 F. Supp. 627 · District Court, S.D. Georgia · Jun 22, 1987

to trial, and that entitlement to qualified immunity turns on "the essentially legal question whether the conduct of which the plaintiff complains violated clearly established law.” … been violated are all “clearly established.”

Rodriguez v. Panarello

119 F. Supp. 3d 331 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 10, 2015

clearly established. … Moreover, to defeat a qualified immunity defense, the right allegedly violated must have been clearly established at the time of the violation.

MCCLOUD v. VANSHOYCK

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Jan 19, 2024

Defendants Holt, Donovan, Barlow, Hall, and Nicholson all argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity because there is not a clearly established right to an additional decontamination shower beyond … "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." White v.

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

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

O'Connor v. Chicago Transit Authority

778 F. Supp. 967 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Nov 13, 1991

Qualified Immunity on the First Amendment Claim Defendants claim that they are entitled to qualified immunity on the first amendment claim. Under Harlow v. … clearly established).

Mehta v. Foskey

877 F. Supp. 2d 1367 · District Court, S.D. Georgia · Jun 29, 2012

The defense of qualified immunity “turns on the objective legal reason *1376 ableness of the action, assessed in light of the legal rules that were clearly established at the time it was taken.” Anderson v. … immunity because they did not violate clearly established law.

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.

J. D. Pflaumer, Inc. v. United States Department of Justice

450 F. Supp. 1125 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · May 18, 1978

at most, only the qualified immunity enjoyed by police officers. … Defendant Manno, based on the allegations of this case, is entitled to only a qualified immunity defense, requiring him to establish that his alleged action in directing the seizure of the plaintiffs’ records was done in

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).

Barnes v. LAPORTE COUNTY

621 F. Supp. 2d 642 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Jan 7, 2008

In determining whether an official is entitled to qualified immunity, a plaintiff must first allege the deprivation of an actual constitutional right that is clearly established. Doyle v. … Shuter may or may not be entitled to qualified immunity, but Shuter has failed to adequately establish that qualified immunity exists as a basis for dismissal. 4 Shuter’s motion to dismiss is DENIED. [Doc. No. 18.].

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.”

Kingsmill v. Szewczak

117 F. Supp. 3d 657 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 30, 2015

Qualiñed Immunity Officer Szewczak argues' that he is entitled to qualified immunity because “it was not clearly established oh February 9, 2014, that calling a person over to a patrol car and failing to warn that person … Qualified immunity shields government officials from liability for civil damages to the extent that their conduct did not violate clearly-established constitutional rights of which a reasonable officer would have known.