Case law

Zappala v. Albicelli

954 F. Supp. 538 · District Court, N.D. New York · Feb 10, 1997

The qualified immunity standard requires a two-prong inquiry. The first prong inquires whether the right claimed to have been violated was clearly established at the time the Defendants acted. … Clearly Established Prong The purpose of the first prong of the qualified immunity test is to ask whether the Defendant official should have been on notice that his conduct could implicate a “clearly established” constitutional

JAMES BY AND THROUGH JAMES v. Unified School Dist. No. 512

959 F. Supp. 1407 · District Court, D. Kansas · Mar 28, 1997

The focus of both motions is qualified immunity; however, before discussing qualified immunity, the court first must examine whether the plaintiff has stated a cognizable claim under § 1983. See Kaul, 83 F.3d at 1213 . … Meeks, 52 F.3d 1547, 1552 (10th Cir.1995) (citations omitted) When a defendant raises the defense of qualified immunity, plaintiff must show the law was clearly established when the alleged violation occurred and must come

Fleming v. Sharma

605 F. Supp. 2d 399 · District Court, N.D. New York · Mar 31, 2009

Qualified Immunity Defendants also argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity. … A defendant acting in the course of his official duties is entitled to qualified immunity if the constitutional right violated was not clearly established at the time of his conduct. Pabon v.

Herrera v. City of Albuquerque

674 F. Supp. 2d 1271 · District Court, D. New Mexico · Dec 19, 2008

Second, Plaintiff contends that Officer O’Brien is not entitled to qualified immunity because at the time of Plaintiffs arrest, it was clearly established “that an arrest not supported by probable cause is unlawful.” … While it is clearly established that arrest without probable cause is a violation of the Fourth Amendment, the Court cannot deny qualified immunity to Officer O’Brien by applying the “clearly established law” test at this

Skevofilax v. Quigley

586 F. Supp. 532 · District Court, D. New Jersey · May 2, 1984

clearly established. … Montgomery County, 573 F.Supp. 604, 610 (D.Md.1983) (law re: strip searching of pretrial detainees was not clearly established prior to Fourth Circuit decision, was clearly established after that decision; qualified immunity

Carpenter v. MISSISSIPPI VALLEY STATE UNIVERSITY

807 F. Supp. 2d 570 · District Court, N.D. Mississippi · Aug 10, 2011

Such immunity protects public officials from suit unless their conduct violates a clearly established constitutional right. Mace v. City of Palestine, 333 F.3d 621, 623 (5th Cir.2003). … Before turning to the second-prong of the qualified immunity analysis (i.e., whether the Defendants acted “objectively reasonable”), the Court first analyzes whether Plaintiff has shown a violation of a clearly established

Alexis v. District of Columbia

77 F. Supp. 2d 35 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 29, 1999

The “Right” Which Must Have Been “Clearly Established” The plaintiffs contend that qualified immunity does not apply, because Mr. … Williams acted in disregard of clearly established rights. Accordingly, Mr. Williams is entitled to qualified immunity as to his statements at the January 1997 press conference. D.

Hernandez-Lopez v. Pereira

380 F. Supp. 2d 30 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Mar 22, 2005

Dep’t For Children, Youth & Their Families, 321 F.3d 1, 4 (1st Cir.2003) (qualified immunity applies if the asserted constitutional right was not “clearly established” at the time of the alleged violation). … The Court of Appeals has established a three-part test when determining if a public official is entitled to qualified immunity: (1) whether plaintiffs’ allegations, if true, establish a constitutional violation; (2) whether

Veilleux v. Perschau

District Court, D. New Hampshire · Nov 15, 1995

Qualified Immunity Standard In Harlow v . … Bissell, 31 F.3d at 1255-56 (officer entitled to qualified immunity because law recognizing Fifth Amendment violation even if statements are not used was not "clearly established"); Wiley v .

Millspaugh v. Wabash County Department of Public Welfare

746 F. Supp. 832 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Jul 31, 1990

Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, public officials performing discretionary functions are protected against suits for damages unless their conduct violates clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of … clearly established at the time of the alleged violation.

Smith v. Levine Leichtman Capital Partners, Inc.

723 F. Supp. 2d 1205 · District Court, N.D. California · Jun 29, 2010

With respect to NCG’s third argument, the Ninth Circuit has clearly held that qualified immunity is not available to private entities. … NCG has not provided any authority demonstrating that qualified immunity is available under California law for state-law claims.

Pella v. Adams

638 F. Supp. 94 · District Court, D. Nevada · May 8, 1986

The discovery was sufficient to establish probable cause for the urinalysis. There are no other allegations that the demanded urinalysis was conducted in an unreasonable manner. … ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY Defendants Armstrong and Snyder argue that they are absolutely immune as Board of Parole Commissioners.

Patel v. Dennett

389 F. Supp. 3d 888 · District Court, D. Nevada · Mar 27, 2018

And because it is clearly established that a citizen has the First Amendment right to criticize officers, even with profanity, Dennett is not entitled to qualified immunity on this claim. *897 B. … We have held that an officer is not entitled to qualified immunity on the grounds that the law is not clearly established every time a novel method is used to inflict injury.") (citation and quotations omitted).

Llantin-Ballester v. Negron-Irrizary

353 F. Supp. 2d 206 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Jan 7, 2005

Co-defendant Negron Irizarry also submits he is entitled to qualified immunity in his personal capacity since his conduct does not violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional right of which a reasonable person … The defendants are entitled to qualified immunity unless (1) the facts alleged show the defendants’ conduct violated a constitutional right, and (2) the contours of this right are "clearly established” under then-existing

Hirschfeld v. Spanakos

909 F. Supp. 174 · District Court, S.D. New York · Dec 15, 1995

And while a reasonable defendant would have understood from existing law that the alleged acts were tortious under State law, the right that must be clearly established to defeat qualified immunity in a Section 1983 case … capacity suits than the federal doctrine of qualified immunity.

Wheeler v. Gilmore

998 F. Supp. 666 · District Court, E.D. Virginia · Mar 30, 1998

Because the constitutional right asserted by plaintiff is neither clearly established nor absolute, defendant Gaden is entitled to qualified immunity. … Thus, the threshold qualified immunity question here is whether there is a clearly established constitutional right to privacy in information contained in a pre-sentence report.

Jackson v. Tellado

236 F. Supp. 3d 636 · District Court, E.D. New York · Feb 15, 2017

was clearly established. … of force that violated clearly established law. b)Defendant Braumann The Court also denies qualified immunity to Defendant Braumann.

S.J. Ex Rel. S.J. v. Perspectives Charter School

685 F. Supp. 2d 847 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Feb 9, 2010

To overcome qualified immunity, a plaintiff must show that the alleged conduct gives rise to a constitutional violation, and that the right was clearly established at the time of the violation. See Tun v. … Spencer and Frye outside a ‘clearly established’ constitutional norm, they are entitled to qualified immunity”) (citing Doe, 631 F.2d. at 92-93 ).

Wiers v. Barnes

925 F. Supp. 1079 · District Court, D. Delaware · May 3, 1996

are not shielded from liability under the doctrine of qualified immunity because the right to be free from excessive force had been clearly established; (4) defendants’ conduct gives rise to cognizable claims under state … There, plaintiff argued that qualified immunity could not apply to his case, because where the law is clearly established and proof of the elements of the plaintiff's prima facie case would defeat immunity, no qualified immunity

Brisk v. City of Miami Beach, Fla.

726 F. Supp. 1305 · District Court, S.D. Florida · Dec 15, 1989

For instance, if the plaintiff’s allegations do not state a claim of violation of clearly established law, a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal before the commencement of discovery. … of violations of clearly established law. 13 Accordingly, the case proceeded to *1309 trial with the qualified immunity issue unaddressed and hence unresolved.