Case law

Cornelius v. La Croix

631 F. Supp. 610 · District Court, E.D. Wisconsin · Apr 3, 1986

Qualified Immunity David La Croix asserts that as a matter of law he is entitled to qualified immunity from the damages awarded against him in this case. Mr. … Under the doctrine of qualified immunity as it now stands, the issue is whether the challenged conduct violated clearly established constitutional or statutory rights of which a reasonable person would have known.

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

Elder v. Holloway

751 F. Supp. 858 · District Court, D. Idaho · Nov 21, 1990

another’s ... clearly established constitutional rights?” … Qualified immunity. This court’s analysis on whether or not there was a valid arrest under the circumstances in this case controls the out *866 come on the issue of qualified immunity.

Montgomery v. Board of County Commissioners

637 F. Supp. 2d 934 · District Court, D. Colorado · Jun 5, 2009

Plaintiff further argues that “qualified immunity should be denied, because it is clearly established that a State may not discharge an employee on a basis that infringes that employee’s constitutionally-protected interest … Turning to the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis, I must determine whether Plaintiffs First Amendment right was clearly established at the time of the violation.

Garza v. Escobar

386 F. Supp. 3d 794 · District Court, S.D. Texas · Apr 30, 2019

to qualified immunity if Plaintiff had stated a claim. b. … Texas , 65 F.3d 467 (5th Cir. 1995) (finding qualified immunity appropriate because it was not clearly established whether the political patronage exception applied to investigators in district attorney's offices or sufficiently

Victoria v. City of San Diego

326 F. Supp. 3d 1003 · District Court, S.D. California · Sep 5, 2018

In suits under § 1983, qualified immunity "shields government officials from civil damages liability unless the official violated a statutory or constitutional right that was clearly established at the time of the challenged … In general, 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

M.W. Ex Rel. T.W. v. Madison County Board of Education

262 F. Supp. 2d 737 · District Court, E.D. Kentucky · May 7, 2003

Qualified immunity is an affirmative defense that shields government officials “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a … was clearly established.

Sheffield v. Pieroway

361 F. Supp. 3d 160 · District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 22, 2019

Qualified Immunity Resil asserts that he is entitled to qualified immunity, which plaintiff opposes. … Qualified Immunity Pieroway contends that he is entitled to qualified immunity.

Eberhardinger v. City of York

341 F. Supp. 3d 420 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 17, 2018

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity protects a state actor who has committed a constitutional violation if the plaintiff's rights were not "clearly established" when the individual acted. See Pearson v. … The Supreme Court of the United States has repeatedly admonished that, when analyzing qualified immunity, courts should not "define clearly established law at a high level of generality."

Rose v. Town of Concord

971 F. Supp. 47 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jul 15, 1997

Qualified immunity shields government officials from liability for civil damages when their actions “[do] not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … An Officer’s “qualified immunity is pierced only if there clearly was no probable cause at the time the arrest was made.” Id.; see also Topp v. Wolkowski, 994 F.2d 45, 48 (1st Cir.1993).

Smith v. Tolley

960 F. Supp. 977 · District Court, E.D. Virginia · Apr 4, 1997

Baker, 825 F.2d 772, 774 (4th Cir.1987). 22 This is because “... there are two levels on which the immunity shield operates. First, the particular right must be clearly established in the law. … Therefore, Tolley is entitled to qualified immunity.

Hogan v. Pataki

953 F. Supp. 22 · District Court, N.D. New York · Jan 15, 1997

Moreover, qualified immunity protects a defendant even where the right in question was clearly established if it was objectively reasonable for the defendant to believe the acts did not violate that right. … Naturally, then, in so far as the individually named defendants are concerned, they are entitled to qualified immunity in that their conduct did not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which

Roman Melendez v. Inclan

641 F. Supp. 998 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · May 9, 1986

immunity test requires a two part analysis: 1) whether the officer's conduct violated a constitutional right "clearly established" at the time of the violation, and 2) whether the government official asserting the qualified … In the present case, defendant makes no argument in support of his claim for a qualified immunity that the law prohibiting patronage dismissals was not clearly established.

Landstrom v. Illinois Department of Children & Family Services

699 F. Supp. 1270 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Oct 31, 1988

immunity from money damages unless the conduct violated “clearly established statutory or constitu *1274 tional rights of which a reasonable person would have known” (Harlow v. … To double back a bit, what the earlier analysis established was that such allegations — even though accepted as true — do not divest the individuals of qualified immunity.

James v. Price

602 F. Supp. 843 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Feb 21, 1985

Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 , 102 S.Ct. 2727 , 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982), a government official performing a discretionary function is shielded by qualified immunity unless his actions violated “clearly established statutory or … Operating on the assumption that the right to be free from malicious prosecution was not a clearly established right, we found that the *846 state officers in this case were entitled to rely on the qualified immunity defense

Miller v. Campbell County, Wyo.

722 F. Supp. 687 · District Court, D. Wyoming · Oct 2, 1989

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY As officials performing discretionary functions, the defendants are entitled to assert qualified immunity from this lawsuit. Harlow v. … The plaintiff merely asserts that under Harlow , the defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity because the law is clearly established that a person cannot be deprived of property without due process of law or arrested

Sterrett v. Cowan

85 F. Supp. 3d 916 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Feb 4, 2015

Clearly Established Defendants argue that Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity since they did not violate Sterrett’s constitutional rights and that the rights alleged and procedures sought by Sterrett are not “clearly … In response, Sterrett argues that the rights he asserts, are clearly established and that Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity.

Burgess v. Fischer

890 F. Supp. 2d 845 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Sep 4, 2012

Qualified immunity protects state officials so long as “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Dickerson v. … Qualified immunity includes a two-step analysis: (1) considering the allegations in a light most favorable to the party injured, a constitutional right has been violated; and (2) whether that right was clearly established

Buchanan v. City of Milwaukee

290 F. Supp. 2d 954 · District Court, E.D. Wisconsin · Oct 27, 2003

Qualified Immunity Sullivan argues that even if he violated plaintiffs Fourth Amendment rights summary judgment must be granted on the basis of qualified immunity. … Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, government officials performing discretionary functions “generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory

Parsons v. Pond

126 F. Supp. 2d 205 · District Court, D. Connecticut · Oct 24, 2000

In the event that this threshold determination reveals a possible constitutional violation, [a] qualified immunity defense is established if (a) the defendant’s action did not violate clearly established law, or (b) it was … In the event that this threshold determination reveals a possible constitutional violation, [a] qualified immunity defense is established if (a) the defendant’s action did not violate clearly established law, or (b) it was