Case law

Putnam v. Davies

169 F.R.D. 89 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Sep 26, 1996

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY Both Plaintiff and Defendants have moved for summary judgment on the issue of the availability of qualified immunity to shield Defendants from liability for damages. … 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

Tidik v. Ritsema

938 F. Supp. 416 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Jul 12, 1996

Their duties clearly qualify as adjudicative or prosecutorial. … To overcome a claim of qualified immunity under section 1983, the plaintiff must show a violation of a constitutionally protected right, and that the protected right is so clearly established that “a reasonable official would

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

Crawford v. Columbus State Community College

196 F. Supp. 3d 766 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Jul 11, 2016

Qualified Immunity The defendants’ qualified-immunity argument similarly lacks merit. 3 Defendants argue that because there was no “clearly established law supporting Crawford’s attempt to assert an age discrimination claim … Accordingly, the Court will only address the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis — whether that right was "clearly established.”

Conner v. Tate

130 F. Supp. 2d 1370 · District Court, N.D. Georgia · Feb 9, 2001

In Lassiter , the Eleventh Circuit held that for a law to be clearly established in the qualified immunity context, “preexisting law must dictate, that is truly compel (not just suggest or allow or raise a question about) … as clearly established law.

Smith v. Robinson

456 F. Supp. 449 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 6, 1978

Under the circumstances, the “clearly established right” aspect of Wood v. Strickland is unavailing to plaintiff here, and defendants’ assertion of qualified immunity must therefore prevail. … With respect to the equal protection claim, however, plaintiff does not even suggest that prior decisions delineate a “clearly established” right that would defeat defendants’ assertion of qualified immunity.

Burnett v. Bottoms

368 F. Supp. 2d 1033 · District Court, D. Arizona · May 2, 2005

Qualified Immunity Defendants contend that the doctrine of qualified immunity shields them from Plaintiffs § 1983 claims. … If the right is not clearly established, the individual public officials are entitled to qualified immunity if a reasonable official could have believed that his or her conduct was lawful. Thompson v.

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.

Woods v. White

689 F. Supp. 874 · District Court, W.D. Wisconsin · Jul 27, 1988

The Court has carved out a qualified immunity for government officials whose “conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … Therefore, the defense of qualified immunity is not available to defendants. See Forrester 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.

Green v. Brantley

719 F. Supp. 1570 · District Court, N.D. Georgia · Jan 20, 1989

to qualified immunity. … According to Anderson , qualified immunity requires not only a finding that general legal principles were clearly established, but also a finding that the law was clearly established with such particularity that a reasonable

Belanger v. Blum

628 F. Supp. 2d 260 · District Court, D. Connecticut · Jun 10, 2009

Qualified immunity protects the state defendants to the extent that the'ir conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. … “Law is not ‘clearly established’ for purposes of qualified immunity by district court opinions, but by the decisions of circuit courts or the Supreme Court.” Cipes, 386 F.Supp.2d at 42 .

Campbell v. Casey

166 F. Supp. 3d 144 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Feb 29, 2016

Defendant seeks summary judgment' due to qualified immunity as well as on the merits. a. … That right has been clearly established by the U.S. Supreme Court for decades.

Alexander v. Newman

345 F. Supp. 2d 876 · District Court, W.D. Tennessee · Nov 22, 2004

Qualified Immunity Defendants argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity as to Plaintiffs Fourth Amendment § 1983 claim. … “Government officials are entitled to qualified immunity for discretionary acts that do ‘not violate clearly established [federal] statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’ ” Goad,

Rice v. Burks

796 F. Supp. 319 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · May 28, 1992

The Seventh Circuit, in discussing that court’s jurisdiction over an interlocutory appeal purportedly on qualified immunity grounds, explained qualified immunity as follows: The defense of qualified immunity articulated in … An official who does not violate law “clearly established” at the time, 457 U.S. at 818 , 102 S.Ct. at 2738 , is entitled not only to prevail, but to prevail before trial. Qualified immunity, we know from Mitchell [v.

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.

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

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

J.R. v. Gloria

599 F. Supp. 2d 182 · District Court, D. Rhode Island · Feb 26, 2009

The second qualified immunity prong examines whether the contours of this right were clearly established in 1996. Anderson, 483 U.S. at 640 , 107 S.Ct. 3034 . … Even if this final parameter of the right was clearly established *202 in 1996, Defendants Gloria and Terry are still entitled to qualified immunity because, under the third and final prong, each would have an objectively

Hensley v. Suttles

167 F. Supp. 3d 753 · District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Mar 9, 2016

In response, these Defendants claim they are entitled to summary judgment based on qualified immunity. … In their summary judgment opening brief, the Defendants make no arguments beyond public official immunity/qualified immunity.