Case law

Mincieli v. Bruder

914 F. Supp. 512 · District Court, S.D. Florida · Mar 7, 1994

Mineieli can meet this burden by demonstrating that Bruder’s actions violated clearly established constitutional law. Lowe v. Aldridge, 958 F.2d 1565, 1570 (11th Cir.1992). … than on qualified immunity. 6 .

Downey v. Coalition Against Rape and Abuse, Inc.

143 F. Supp. 2d 423 · District Court, D. New Jersey · May 2, 2001

When material facts are not in dispute, the district court may decide whether a government official has established the defense of qualified immunity as a matter of law. Anderson v. … not rest on clearly established law, defendants Batten and Moore accordingly are entitled to immunity from plaintiffs Equal Protection claim.

Cox v. Village of Pleasantville

271 F. Supp. 3d 591 · District Court, S.D. New York · Sep 26, 2017

Qualified immunity shields a defendant from standing trial or facing other burdens of litigation “if either (a) the defendant’s, action did not violate clearly established law, or (b) it was objectively reasonable for the … As there is no clearly-established law holding that a stop under these or similar circumstances is impermissible, the Court agrees that, Hess is entitled to qualified immunity with respect to his Fourth Amendment seizure

Weigand v. Spadt

317 F. Supp. 2d 1129 · District Court, D. Nebraska · May 12, 2004

DISCUSSION “ ‘Qualified immunity shields government officials from suit unless their conduct violated a clearly established constitutional or statutory right of which a reasonable person would have known.’” Yowell v. … Stated another way, qualified immunity shields a defendant from suit if he or she could have reasonably believed his or her conduct to be lawful “in light of clearly established law and the information [that the defendant

Allen v. Town of Colcord

874 F. Supp. 2d 1276 · District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · Jun 1, 2012

capacity, and Defendants Creech and Denny do not dispute this in their reply. 98 Plaintiff further states that none of the Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity as they all violated clearly established Constitutional … qualified immunity context, a plaintiff must allege facts, if assumed to be true, that are sufficient to show that the defendants violated a plaintiffs constitutional rights, and that those rights were clearly established

Mitchell v. Miller

56 F. Supp. 3d 57 · District Court, D. Maine · Sep 26, 2014

prong (whether the right was clearly established). … established law for purposes of qualified immunity.

Estate of Sorrells v. City of Dallas

192 F.R.D. 203 · District Court, N.D. Texas · Feb 25, 2000

Government officials are entitled to qualified immunity if their conduct does not “violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. … Mitchell, 105 S.Ct. at 2815 (“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.

Glass v. Abbo

284 F. Supp. 2d 700 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Sep 3, 2003

. § 1983 for money damages, qualified immunity protects a public official from being sued as long as the official ‘does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would … The principles of qualified immunity that we reaffirm today require that Anderson be permitted to argue that he is entitled to summary judgment on the ground-that, in light of the clearly established principles governing

Brockway v. Shepherd

942 F. Supp. 1012 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 4, 1996

III.QUALIFIED IMMUNITY A defendant is entitled to qualified immunity from a claim of a violation of a constitutional right if the right was not clearly established at the time of the alleged deprivation and the contours of … WMe the abstract right to be free from unreasonable seizure clearly is established, for qualified immunity purposes the right must be considered on a more specific level: “[t]he contours of the right must be sufficiently

Randle v. Tregre

147 F. Supp. 3d 581 · District Court, E.D. Louisiana · Dec 2, 2015

The affirmative defense of qualified immunity, asserted by all of the defendants, if established, precludes li'ability'for damages on all of plaintiffs federal law claims against defendants in their .individual capacities … of the defendants was objectively unreasonable in light of .clearly established law.”

Rasic v. City of Northlake

563 F. Supp. 2d 885 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jun 27, 2008

The two-part standard for qualified immunity asks whether the constitutional right allegedly violated was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation; it does not ask whether it was clearly established that the … The purpose of qualified immunity is to give public officials freedom to act — but, only so long as their actions do not violate a clearly established right.

LeSUEUR-RICHMOND SLATE CORP. v. FEHRER

752 F. Supp. 2d 713 · District Court, W.D. Virginia · Nov 3, 2010

When evaluating a qualified immunity claim, the district court should generally first determine whether a right “would have been violated on the facts alleged; [and] ... second ... whether the right was clearly established … Qualified immunity shields government officials from suit unless they transgress rights that are “clearly established.” Saucier, 533 U.S. at 200, 121 S.Ct. 2151 (2001).

Baldwin v. Estherville

333 F. Supp. 3d 817 · District Court, N.D. Iowa · Sep 14, 2018

In those jurisdictions, there cannot be liability unless the defendant violated "clearly established ... constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known." … In my prior ruling, as to qualified immunity to the federal constitutional clam, I concluded that it was not clearly established that Baldwin's conduct-operating his ATV in a ditch that was publicly-owned property-did not

Gidley v. Oliveri

641 F. Supp. 2d 92 · District Court, D. New Hampshire · Jun 25, 2009

The defendants are entitled to qualified immunity on the federal claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 because the booking-and-summons of Gidley did not implicate a clearly established Fourth Amendment right such that a reasonable … Clearly established right “Public officials are ... entitled to qualified immunity unless the facts establish that their conduct violated a constitutional right that was ‘clearly established’ at the time of the violation.

Duerscherl v. Foley

681 F. Supp. 1364 · District Court, D. Minnesota · Jun 25, 1987

If Foley was not entitled to absolute immunity, he would certainly be entitled to qualified immunity. … Failure to show that the asserted interest is protected by the due process clause essentially establishes the defense of qualified immunity. 3 .

Ellis v. Vance

227 F. Supp. 3d 627 · District Court, N.D. Mississippi · Jan 3, 2017

As discussed below, plaintiffs failure to offer more specific authority means that she is unable to establish the “clearly established” prong of the qualified immunity test, but it also makes it exceedingly difficult for … This court now turns to the second, or “clearly established,” prong of the qualified immunity standard. The U.S.

Nampa Classical Academy v. Goesling

714 F. Supp. 2d 1079 · District Court, D. Idaho · May 17, 2010

Qualified Immunity Standard “Qualified immunity serves to shield government officials ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … “Whether a right is ‘clearly established’ for purposes of qualified immunity is an inquiry that ‘must be undertaken in light *1091 of the specific context of the case, not as a broad general proposition.’

Oldridge v. Wichita, Kansas, City of

District Court, D. Kansas · Nov 30, 2022

While an issue of fact as to whether it was reasonably foreseeable that these actions would lead to a violation of Plaintiff’s clearly established rights, qualified immunity requires a plaintiff to prove more than a reasonably … Plaintiff has failed to show under a qualified immunity analysis that Givens, Salcido, and Ramsay violated a clearly established constitutional right.

Shows v. Morgan

40 F. Supp. 2d 1345 · District Court, M.D. Alabama · Mar 17, 1999

Where the law that the defendants allegedly violated was not clearly established at the time of the alleged offense, the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. See id. at 807 , 102 S.Ct. at 2732 ; Stewart v. … established, and (3) where the qualified immunity determination does end the whole case,” Lewis does not prohibit the. court from first considering a qualified-immunity defense).

Kauffman v. Pennsylvania Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals

766 F. Supp. 2d 555 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 16, 2011

Pertinent to qualified immunity, a defendant may raise an affirmative defense “on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion if the predicate establishing the defense is apparent from the face of the complaint.” Bethel v. … Second, “if a violation could be made out on a favorable view of the parties’ submissions, the next, sequential step is to ask whether the right was clearly established.” Id.