Case law

Brown v. Fogle

819 F. Supp. 2d 23 · District Court, District of Columbia · Oct 18, 2011

Qualified immunity is “a defense that shields officials from suit if their conduct ‘d[id] not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’ ” Bame v. … "If no constitutional right would have been violated were the allegations established, there is no necessity for further inquiries concerning qualified immunity." Id.

Nicholas v. Tucker

89 F. Supp. 2d 475 · District Court, S.D. New York · Mar 14, 2000

In consequence, summary judgment the basis of qualified immunity is not appropriate. … clearly established constitutional right.); Al-Jundi v.

Doe v. Southeast Delco School District

140 F. Supp. 3d 396 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 13, 2015

Qualified immunity shields government employees sued in their personal capacities from liability unless their conduct violates “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights ... which a reasonable person would have … Qualified immunity will protect Assistant Superintendent Ryan if Plaintiffs *404 have failed to allege he violated their constitutional rights or if Plaintiffs have alleged a violation of a right that was not clearly established

Doyle v. Coombe

976 F. Supp. 183 · District Court, W.D. New York · Aug 26, 1997

Qualified Immunity Defendants have not raised qualified immunity as a basis for summary judgment. … “‘To defeat an official’s claim of qualified immunity, the individual’s right must have been clearly established at the time of the alleged violation.’ ” LaBounty, 1996 WL 711497 at *1 (citations omitted).

Robison v. Department of Insurance, Finanical Institutions and Professional Registration

District Court, E.D. Missouri · Feb 23, 2022

immunity. … Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 231 (2009) (explaining qualified immunity protects a government official from liability unless his conduct violated a “clearly established” constitutional or statutory right).

Samarco v. Neumann

44 F. Supp. 2d 1276 · District Court, S.D. Florida · Mar 4, 1999

The clearly established law prong of the qualified immunity test many not be met through references to general propositions. See Lassiter, 28 F.3d at 1149-50 . … Substantiating Clearly Established Violations of the Fourth Amendment ■ To overcome qualified immunity, Samar-co must show that: (1) Deputy Christensen violated a federal constitutional right; and (2) that the right was clearly

Youngbear v. Thalacker

174 F. Supp. 2d 902 · District Court, N.D. Iowa · Nov 8, 2001

Qualified Immunity 1. … The qualified immunity defense should fail if the official violates a clearly established right, because “a reasonably competent public official should know the law governing his conduct.”

Ward v. Olson

939 F. Supp. 2d 956 · District Court, D. Minnesota · Apr 8, 2013

Excessive Force “The doctrine of qualified immunity protects [law enforcement] officers from personal liability under § 1983 insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established ... constitutional rights of which … Clearly Established Constitutional Right A right is clearly established if “it would be clear to a reasonable officer that his conduct was unlawful in the situation he confronted.” White v.

Lynch v. City of Boston

989 F. Supp. 275 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Dec 9, 1997

A defense of qualified immunity ordinarily fails where the law that was violated was clearly established, “since a reasonably competent public official should know the law governing his conduct.” … depends on the concept of a “clearly established” right.

Kinlocke v. Benton

257 F. Supp. 3d 1368 · District Court, N.D. Georgia · Jun 19, 2017

Next, a plaintiff seeking to overcome a defendant’s qualified' immunity privilege must show that (1) the state actor violated plaintiffs constitutional or statutory rights, and (2) those rights were clearly established at … In sum, when viewing the facts in the light most favorable to Kinlocke, there are sufficient allegations to show that Fox violated Kin-locke’s clearly established right to medical care, and hence Fox is not entitled to qualified

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.

Ferguson v. Hall

33 F. Supp. 2d 608 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Jan 28, 1999

A government official is not entitled to qualified immunity if his conduct results in the violation of a clearly established statutory or constitutional right of which a reasonable person would have known. … To withstand a motion for summary judgment based on a claim of qualified immunity in the Sixth Circuit, a plaintiff must establish two things.

Estate of Sinthasomphone v. City of Milwaukee

838 F. Supp. 1320 · District Court, E.D. Wisconsin · Nov 23, 1993

The majority opinion indicated, however, that they were deciding the qualified immunity issue: whether an obligation was “clearly established,” not whether a constitutional obligation existed. … The three police officers in this case are entitled to qualified immunity unless their conduct violated Konerak Sinthasomphone’s clearly established constitutional rights.

Chappell v. City of Cleveland

584 F. Supp. 2d 974 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Sep 30, 2008

In general, qualified immunity applies when government officials’ conduct in performing discretionary functions “does not violate ‘clearly established’ statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would … The Saucier Test For Qualified Immunity In Saucier v.

King v. Thornburg

762 F. Supp. 336 · District Court, S.D. Georgia · Apr 17, 1991

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY Defendant Brown contends that even if he is not entitled to absolute immunity he is entitled to qualified immunity because his actions would have been taken within his “discretionary authority” as chief … In order to overcome a qualified immunity defense, plaintiff bears the burden of showing that “the legal norms allegedly violated by the defendant were clearly established at the time of the challenged actions or, ... the

Merchant v. Fairfax County, Va.

778 F. Supp. 2d 636 · District Court, E.D. Virginia · Apr 11, 2011

Yet, this does not end the qualified immunity analysis. The second step of the inquiry requires determining whether the constitutional right violated was “clearly established” in the specific context presented here. … Merchant — -was clearly established. Therefore, Officer Bauer is not entitled to summary judgment based on qualified immunity. 14 *650 B.

Willson v. Cagle

711 F. Supp. 1521 · District Court, N.D. California · Sep 22, 1988

clearly established constitutional rights. … However, the Harlow opinion also clearly states that qualified immunity is available only to "government officials performing discretionary functions." Id.

(PS) Machado v. Lizarraga

District Court, E.D. California · Jul 9, 2020

Qualified Immunity 26 Lastly, defendants argue that they are immune from liability under the doctrine of 27 qualified immunity. … Cal. 2010) (denying to dismiss complaint on 9 qualified immunity grounds because it could not be clearly determined on the face of complaint, 10 but declaring that the ground could be raised through summary judgment).

NAACP of San Jose/ Silicon Valley v. City Of San Jose

District Court, N.D. California · Aug 3, 2023

Emmons, 139 S.Ct. 500, 27 503 (2019). 1 district framed the relevant qualified immunity question as “whether it was clearly 2 established that an officer … immunity on the ground that the law is not clearly 16 established every time a novel method is used to inflict injury.”

C.A. v. Lowndes County Department of Family & Children Services

93 F. Supp. 2d 744 · District Court, N.D. Mississippi · Mar 13, 2000

The first inquiry in examining a defense of qualified immunity is whether the plaintiff has alleged “the violation of a clearly established constitutional right.” Siegert v. … As such, the Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity because the constitutional right to be free from state-created dangers was not, and is not, clearly established in this jurisdiction.