Case law

Ziemba v. Armstrong

433 F. Supp. 2d 248 · District Court, D. Connecticut · May 17, 2006

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY The qualified immunity inquiry requires the court to ask, first, whether the defendant’s conduct violated a constitutional right. Saucier v. … Qualified Immunity Argument For the reasons stated in Part II, supra, the court finds that Mangiafico is not entitled to qualified immunity.

Ferguson v. Leiter

220 F. Supp. 2d 875 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Sep 18, 2002

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity is an affirmative defense that shields public officials performing discretionary functions from civil damages if their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … Once a qualified immunity defense is raised, the “plaintiff is obliged to present facts which if true would constitute a violation of clearly established law.” Dominque v.

Soderstrand v. Oklahoma ex rel. Board of Regents of Oklahoma Agricultural & Mechanical Colleges

463 F. Supp. 2d 1308 · District Court, W.D. Oklahoma · Nov 22, 2006

Qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions from liability for civil damages unless their conduct violates clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … right was clearly established when the alleged violation occurred.

United States Ex Rel. Burlbaw v. Orenduff

400 F. Supp. 2d 1276 · District Court, D. New Mexico · Nov 15, 2005

If Plaintiffs can do so, they must then show the statutory right was clearly established. Id. … Since Plaintiffs have failed to raise an issue of fact concerning the existence of an FCA violation, the Court need not address the “clearly established law” aspect of the qualified-immunity doctrine.

Brown v. Office of State Comptroller

211 F. Supp. 3d 455 · District Court, D. Connecticut · Sep 29, 2016

Third, defendants contend that, even if Brown’s speech was protected by the First Amendment, the law at issue is not clearly established and thus they are protected under the doctrine of qualified immunity. … Courts typically frame the qualified immunity analysis by requiring the defendant to establish one of two conditions: that “(a) the defendant’s action did not violate clearly established law, or (b) it was objectively reasonable

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

Aceto v. Kachajian

240 F. Supp. 2d 121 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jan 24, 2003

Overview of Qualified Immunity “Qualified immunity protects public officials from section 1983 civil liability so long *124 as they ‘acted reasonably under settled law in the circumstances.’ ” Veilleux v. … Clearly Established Right Because the factual allegations — if true — show defendants violated a constitutional right, the critical question is whether the constitutional right was clearly established.

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.

Shafer v. City of Boulder

896 F. Supp. 2d 915 · District Court, D. Nevada · Sep 12, 2012

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 a reasonable person … “When a law enforcement officer asserts qualified immunity from liability for Fourth Amendment violations, the district court must determine whether, in light of clearly established principles gov *933 erning the conduct

Frias v. Demings

823 F. Supp. 2d 1279 · District Court, M.D. Florida · Oct 14, 2011

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity protects government officials performing discretionary functions from individual liability as long as their conduct does not violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights … The second step in determining whether qualified immunity applies is whether the law was “clearly established.” Gonzalez, 325 F.3d at 1234 .

Roman Catholic Foundation v. Regents of the University of Wisconsin System

590 F. Supp. 2d 1083 · District Court, W.D. Wisconsin · Dec 16, 2008

The reason plaintiffs cannot obtain monetary relief is because defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. 3 The reason that defendants are entitled to qualified immunity is because their view that the Establishment Clause … Such liability, in turn, depends on whether defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. 4 .

Tessler v. Paterson

768 F. Supp. 2d 661 · District Court, S.D. New York · Mar 7, 2011

A government official is entitled to qualified immunity where his or her discretionary conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … a clearly established constitutional right.

Lelieve v. Oroso

846 F. Supp. 2d 1294 · District Court, S.D. Florida · Feb 14, 2012

Therefore, the burden shifts to Lelieve to demonstrate that Belfort violated a clearly established statutory or constitutional right to overcome the qualified-immunity defense. B. Alleged Constitutional Violations 1. … In sum, Lelieve has not met his burden to demonstrate that Belfort violated a clearly established statutory or constitutional right to overcome the qualified-immunity defense.

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.

Zimmerman v. Spears

428 F. Supp. 759 · District Court, W.D. Texas · Jan 3, 1977

JUDICIAL IMMUNITY The Plaintiffs’ allegations concerning the Judicial Defendants and the record in SA-76-CA-152 clearly show that their actions were well within the scope of their judicial duties. … Even under this qualified good faith immunity, these defendants are immune from suit.

Isbell v. Bellino

983 F. Supp. 2d 492 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 25, 2012

Due Process Claims and Qualified Immunity The qualified immunity inquiry requires further discussion. … Thus, absolute immunity is not applicable. C. Qualified Immunity. 1. Qualified Immunity Standard.

Trifax Corp. v. District of Columbia

53 F. Supp. 2d 20 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 14, 1999

The second step of the qualified immunity analysis requires the Court to consider whether the individually named defendants “violate[d] clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would … As such, Plaintiff is simply unable to establish that Defendants Gaskins and Thomas violated “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”

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.

Perry v. Lilly

District Court, W.D. Virginia · Nov 6, 2023

The doctrine of qualified immunity shields government officials “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … the right was clearly established at the time of the conduct in question.

Frazier v. Williams

620 F. Supp. 2d 103 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 2, 2009

Callahan, — U.S. -, 129 S.Ct. 808, 815 , 172 L.Ed.2d 565 (2009), the Supreme Court gave the following succinct overview of the qualified immunity doctrine: The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials … Consequently, she is entitled to qualified immunity. B.