Case law

Frohmader v. Wayne

766 F. Supp. 909 · District Court, D. Colorado · Jun 7, 1991

Once a defendant raises a qualified immunity defense, the plaintiff assumes the burden of showing that the defendant has violated clearly established law. Hannula, 907 F.2d at 131 . … The principles of qualified immunity entitle Wayne to summary judgment on the ground that, in light of the clearly established law governing the use of force, he could, as a matter of law, reasonably have believed that his

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 .

Greene v. Cabral

323 F. Supp. 3d 96 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 15, 2018

"An official sued under § 1983 is entitled to qualified immunity unless it is shown that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right that was 'clearly established' at the time of the challenged conduct." … For a right to have been clearly established, such that qualified immunity does not shield an official from liability, "the right's contours [must have been] sufficiently definite that any reasonable official *107 in the

Hucker v. City of Beaumont

144 F. Supp. 2d 696 · District Court, E.D. Texas · May 18, 2001

When a defendant pleads qualified immunity, the court must first determine whether the plaintiff has alleged a clearly established constitutional right. See Sie-gert v. … Qualified immunity is an affirmative defense requiring the defendant to both plead and establish his entitlement to immunity. See Tamez v.

Vives v. City of New York

305 F. Supp. 2d 289 · District Court, S.D. New York · Nov 24, 2003

Are the Detectives Entitled to Qualified Immunity? … Coughlin, 137 F.3d 68, 74 (2d Cir.1998) (reversing grant of qualified immunity where the right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation, but there was some doubt as to whether a “reasonable official would

Nolin v. Town of Springville

45 F. Supp. 2d 894 · District Court, N.D. Alabama · Mar 22, 1999

“For the law to be clearly established to the point that qualified immunity does not apply, the law must have earlier been developed in such a concrete and factually defined context to make it obvious to all *907 reasonable … In Lewis , the Supreme Court clarified the rationale behind resolving the substantive issues in a qualified immunity case before addressing the question of whether the law was clearly established at the time of the violation

Olaniyi v. District of Columbia

416 F. Supp. 2d 43 · District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 17, 2006

However, the officers are entitled to qualified immunity from suit “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established ... constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … “The threshold inquiry a court must undertake in a qualified immunity analysis is whether [the] plaintiffs allegations, if true, establish a constitutional violation.” Hope v.

J.M.M. v. Hernandez

151 F. Supp. 3d 1125 · District Court, D. Nevada · Dec 7, 2015

Qualified Immunity under Section 1983 Qualified immunity-shields state actors from monetary liability under *1132 § 1983 unless (1) the facts alleged by the plaintiff establish a violation of the plaintiffs constitutional … rights and (2) the constitutional right in question was “clearly established” when the alleged misconduct occurred. 49 A state official enjoys qualified immunity if she “reasonably believes that [her] conduct complies with

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.

Coleman v. Rieck

253 F. Supp. 2d 1101 · District Court, D. Nebraska · Mar 24, 2003

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity shields governmental officials from personal liability if their actions, even if unlawful, were “nevertheless objectively reasonable in light of the clearly established law at the time … The officers may still be entitled to qualified immunity if Coleman’s rights were not clearly established at the time of the incident.

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

Dorsey v. Sokoloff

381 F. Supp. 3d 521 · District Court, D. Maryland · May 17, 2019

The second prong of the qualified immunity analysis examines whether a police officer's conduct violated a constitutional right that was clearly established at the time that the conduct occurred. … In consequence, the Fourth Circuit held that the officer was not entitled to qualified immunity for seven of the Taser shocks because he had violated the clearly established constitutional right of an arrestee to be free

Dean v. Earle

866 F. Supp. 336 · District Court, W.D. Kentucky · Oct 28, 1994

legal rules that were “clearly established” at the time the actions were taken. … Thus, Officer Ward did not violate Dean’s clearly established constitutional rights and is immune from monetary liability under § 1983.

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.

Orlik Ex Rel. Orlik v. Dutchess County

603 F. Supp. 2d 632 · District Court, S.D. New York · Mar 16, 2009

Legal Standard for Qualified Immunity The doctrine of qualified immunity shields government agents from liability for their official actions, unless their conduct violates clearly established constitutional rights of which … An official is entitled to qualified immunity where: (1) the plaintiff has not alleged a violation of a constitutional right; (2) the right was not clearly established at the time of the conduct; or (3) the official’s actions

Shelley v. County of San Joaquin

954 F. Supp. 2d 999 · District Court, E.D. California · Jun 27, 2013

of qualified immunity. … Qualified Immunity “The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which

Johnson v. Wright

234 F. Supp. 2d 352 · District Court, S.D. New York · Dec 6, 2002

Violation of Clearly Established Law The Supreme Court recently addressed the issue of what constitutes “clearly established law” for purposes of the qualified immunity defense. See Hope v. … Objective Reasonableness of Officers’ Actions It is not sufficient for the qualified immunity analysis to determine that the right violated was clearly established at the time of its violation.

Demster v. City of Lenexa, Kan.

359 F. Supp. 2d 1182 · District Court, D. Kansas · Mar 16, 2005

The court dismissed this claim after finding that defendants were shielded by qualified immunity. … Once a defendant asserts a qualified immunity defense, the court employs a two-part test.

Barrett v. Board of Education

13 F. Supp. 3d 502 · District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Apr 9, 2014

Qualified immunity. … The last two prongs of the qualified immunity test turn on “the objective legal reasonableness of the action, assessed in light of legal rules that were clearly established at the time it was taken.” Cole v.

Nogueras v. University of Puerto Rico

890 F. Supp. 60 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Jun 13, 1995

Qualified immunity protects government officials engaging in discretionary activities from personal liability, unless a reasonable official would have known that his or her actions would violate a “clearly established” constitutional … Defendants contend that if there exists a cause of action for same-sex harassment, it is not “clearly established.” On this basis, they argue that they are entitled to a grant of qualified immunity.