Case law

Dennis v. Board of Education

21 F. Supp. 3d 497 · District Court, D. Maryland · May 8, 2014

immunity. 3 School officials *503 performing discretionary functions have qualified immunity — they are shielded from liability for civil damages to the extent “ ‘their conduct does not .violate clearly established statutory … was ‘clearly established’ at the time of its violation.”

Wright v. Dee

54 F. Supp. 2d 199 · District Court, S.D. New York · May 28, 1999

A state actor is qualifiedly immune where his actions did not violate rights that a reasonable person would have known were clearly established. Stuto v. Fleishman, 164 F.3d 820, 825 (2d Cir.1999). … Defendants assert that they are entitled to qualified immunity because it was not clearly established at the time of Wright’s disciplinary hearing that assignment to the SHU for three years and the loss of good time credits

Stagemeyer v. County of Dawson

192 F. Supp. 2d 998 · District Court, D. Nebraska · Mar 20, 2002

Qualified Immunity “Government officials performing discretionary functions are entitled to qualified immunity unless they violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would … Likewise, because qualified immunity is not clearly established on the face of the complaint, I shall also deny the defendants’ motion to dismiss the Fourth Amendment claim based on qualified immunity.

Tillman v. Coley

703 F. Supp. 1571 · District Court, M.D. Georgia · Jan 18, 1989

denial of defendant’s claim of good faith or qualified immunity. … action is a violation) violates a clearly established right.

Martel, et al. v. Town of Chichester, et al.

2013 DNH 098 · District Court, D. New Hampshire · Jul 18, 2013

Qualified Immunity - Adinolfo “‘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 … Therefore, in the absence of a clearly established constitutional right, Adinolfo is entitled to qualified immunity. 14  The Martels contend, nevertheless, that a reasonable police

Battiste v. Rojeski

257 F. Supp. 2d 957 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · May 12, 2003

To determine the issue of qualified immunity, I must determine first, whether the officer’s alleged conduct violated a constitutional right; and if so, whether that right was clearly established. Saucier v. … Even if a right is clearly established, defendants are still entitled to qualified immunity if their actions were reasonable. See Anderson v.

Kurtz v. Denniston

872 F. Supp. 631 · District Court, N.D. Iowa · Dec 19, 1994

Delo, 999 F.2d 364, 366 (8th Cir.1993) (first step in qualified immunity analysis was determination of whether conduct violated any clearly established right). … special religious diet is clearly established.

Brinston v. Dunn

928 F. Supp. 669 · District Court, S.D. Mississippi · Apr 22, 1996

And finally, Dunn maintains that she is entitled to qualified immunity, in any event, since plaintiffs claimed First Amendment right was not- clearly established at the time his employment was terminated. … However, “[government officials performing discretionary functions are entitled to qualified immunity from suit unless their conduct violated clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person

Doe v. LaDue

514 F. Supp. 2d 1131 · District Court, D. Minnesota · Sep 4, 2007

Plaintiffs allege that the OPD’s proactive monitoring approach violated Doe’s clearly established Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure 2 and that defendants are not entitled to qualified … As the Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable. search and seizure is a well-established right, even for predatory offender registrants, qualified immunity does not protect the defendant officers. Cf.

Holton v. Mohon

684 F. Supp. 1407 · District Court, N.D. Texas · Sep 8, 1987

Such a finding leads this Court to a discussion of qualified immunity. Qualified immunity is available only to governmental officials performing discretionary functions. Harlow v. … Because the Fourth Amendment rule on warrantless arrests is “clearly established” law, the defense of qualified immunity is available only if a reasonable officer would have believed that probable cause existed to believe

Eckmann v. Board of Education of Hawthorn School District No. 17

636 F. Supp. 1214 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · May 19, 1986

Having at least arguably violated a clearly established constitutional right of plaintiff, the Board members lose the benefits of a qualified immunity — “immunity from suit” — and are forced to proceed to trial to test the … Qualified immunity protects government officials only in cases where it cannot be said that their actions violated rights clearly established at the time that they acted.

Parrish v. City of Wilmington

3 F. Supp. 3d 688 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Feb 28, 2014

Stanforth further argues he is entitled to qualified immunity (Id.). … Riley further argues he is entitled to qualified immunity because in his view the law is not clearly established as to what process is due when an employee resigns (Id.).

Dull v. WEST MANCHESTER TP. POLICE DEPT.

604 F. Supp. 2d 739 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 31, 2009

The court may *749 eschew difficult constitutional issues and award qualified immunity to a defendant if it is apparent that the defendant did not violate rights that were clearly established at the time the defendant acted … To determine whether a police officer enjoys qualified immunity, the court must ascertain whether the officer violated "clearly established statutory or constitutional *752 rights of which a reasonable person would have known

Chesney v. City of Jackson

171 F. Supp. 3d 605 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Mar 21, 2016

“The ultimate burden of proof is on the plaintiff to show that the defendant is not entitled to qualified immunity.” Sheets, 287 F.3d at 586 . Application of the doctrine of qualified immunity entails two inquiries. … Thus, in determining whether a government official has violated a “clearly established” constitutional right under the second prong of the qualified immunity standard, a court must inquire whether “[t]he contours of the right

Oswald v. Graves

819 F. Supp. 680 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Apr 26, 1993

Qualified Immunity In his motion for dismissal, or alternatively, summary judgment, defendant raises the defense of qualified immunity. … Qualified immunity is not, however, available as a defense if the officer knew or reasonably should have known that the law clearly proscribes the action taken and that the action violated clearly established statutory or

Guerrero v. Deane

750 F. Supp. 2d 631 · District Court, E.D. Virginia · Oct 27, 2010

Qualified Immunity 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 … For purposes of the clearly established inquiry, “[i]f the law did not put the officer on notice that his conduct would be clearly unlawful, summary judgment based on qualified immunity is appropriate.”

Musonza v. Costanzo

District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 26, 2026

That is because the Court resolved the excessive force claim on the clearly established prong of the qualified immunity analysis. … An officer might, therefore, be entitled to qualified immunity because they did not violate a clearly established right, but nevertheless not be entitled to the qualified privilege because their use of “force was not objectively

O'Ferrell v. United States

998 F. Supp. 1364 · District Court, M.D. Alabama · Mar 24, 1998

J. pp. 4-S (entire discussion of qualified immun.) That proposition is that it has been clearly established since the Supreme Court decided Malley v. … The Eleventh Circuit has noted, since the O’Ferrells’ ease began, that Franks clearly established, for qualified immunity purposes, that an officer may not make an “affirmative misstatement” in ‘applying for a warrant.

Secot v. City of Sterling Heights

985 F. Supp. 715 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Nov 10, 1997

A claim of qualified immunity depends on whether the defendant’s conduct violated a clearly established statutory or constitutional right of which a reasonable person would have known. … Frohm is entitled to assert the defense of qualified immunity. As held by the Sixth Circuit in Adams , the right to be free from the use of excessive force under the Fourth Amendment is a clearly established right.

Tyson v. Willauer

289 F. Supp. 2d 190 · District Court, D. Connecticut · Oct 23, 2003

However, qualified immunity shields them from liability under § 1983 “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … Here, in support of their qualified immunity defense, Defendants assert that no clearly established right was violated and that Defendants’ entry into Plaintiffs’ residence to execute a valid arrest warrant was lawful and