Case law

Ward v. Members of the Board of Control of Eastern Michigan University

700 F. Supp. 2d 803 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Mar 24, 2010

Qualified immunity protects state officials sued in their individual capacities from civil damages “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … whether the constitutional right was “clearly established” at the time of the alleged misconduct.

Eldridge v. Morrison

970 F. Supp. 928 · District Court, M.D. Alabama · Jun 4, 1996

Under this test, public official performing discretionary functions which would objectively appear to be within the official’s authority have qualified immunity if their challenged conduct did not violate a clearly established … The Eleventh Circuit has explained that [f]or 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

John v. County of Centre

80 F. Supp. 2d 437 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 1, 2000

“Unless plaintiffs allegations state a claim of a violation of a clearly established law, a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal before the commencement of discovery.” P.F. v. … Therefore, we find that plaintiffs cannot overcome defendants’ qualified immunity defense by showing that the challenged conduct violated rights that were clearly established at the time the conduct occurred.

Brooks v. Sevier County

279 F. Supp. 2d 954 · District Court, E.D. Tennessee · Jun 24, 2003

Qualified immunity is an affirmative defense available to government officials for discretionary acts that do not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known … Claims of qualified immunity are assessed on a fact-specific basis to ascertain whether the particular conduct of the defendant police officer infringed on a clearly established federal right of the plaintiff, and whether

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.

Rivas v. Martin

781 F. Supp. 2d 775 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Mar 18, 2011

Second, they argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity because their actions did not violate any of Rivas’ clearly established statutory or constitutional rights. (Id. at 6.) … Thus, because the allegations state that defendants violated Rivas’ clearly established constitutional rights, defendants cannot be granted qualified immunity at the motion to dismiss stage.

Usavage v. Port Authority

932 F. Supp. 2d 575 · District Court, S.D. New York · Mar 26, 2013

Qualified Immunity and Excessive Force “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 … Accordingly, “[a] qualified immunity defense is established only if (1) the officers’ actions did not violate clearly established law, or (2) it was objectively reasonable for the officers to believe that their actions did

Sprouse v. Ryan

346 F. Supp. 3d 1347 · District Court, D. Arizona · Dec 7, 2017

Qualified immunity therefore turns on the second prong-whether the right at issue was clearly established such that Defendants would have known that their conduct was unlawful. See Saucier v. … Unpublished district court decisions "may inform our qualified immunity analysis," but "absent any published opinions on point or overwhelming obviousness of illegality[,]" a right is rarely clearly established.

Lawson v. Gregg

140 F. Supp. 3d 873 · District Court, D. Alaska · Oct 20, 2015

could have believed that his or her conduct was lawful, in light of the clearly established law and the information the searching officers possessed.” 44 “Qualified immunity gives government officials breathing room to make … The United ‘States Supreme Court has held that a court should “not ... define clearly established law at a high level of generality.” 53 “Qualified immunity is no immunity at all if ‘clearly established’ law can simply be

Peters v. Woodbury County

979 F. Supp. 2d 901 · District Court, N.D. Iowa · Oct 25, 2013

In short, the answer to the second qualified immunity question on this claim, whether the right was “clearly established,” is “no.” e. … of the “qualified immunity” analysis.

Herrera v. Santa Fe Public Schools

956 F. Supp. 2d 1191 · District Court, D. New Mexico · Jun 28, 2013

Clearly Established Rights in the Qualified Immunity Analysis. … The Supreme Court, faced with the clearly established prong of Wilson’s qualified immunity, recognized that “courts considering qualified immunity for strip searches” have found it “impossible to establish clearly the contours

Schiffbauer v. Schmidt

95 F. Supp. 3d 846 · District Court, D. Maryland · Mar 24, 2015

Furthermore, because qualified immunity is an immunity from suit “rather than a mere defense to liability; and like an absolute immunity, it is effectively lost if a case is erroneously permitted to go to trial,” Mitchell … “Unless the plaintiffs allegations state a claim of violation of clearly established law, a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal before *853 the commencement of discovery.”

Rasanen Ex Rel. Estate of Rasanen v. Brown

603 F. Supp. 2d 550 · District Court, E.D. New York · Mar 25, 2009

Here, Brown and Etherton seek summary judgment on the basis that they are entitled to qualified immunity. … “The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as then-conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person

Jackson v. Rapps

746 F. Supp. 934 · District Court, W.D. Missouri · Aug 13, 1990

The qualified immunity bar applies when the alleged conduct does not violate, under an objective standard of review, a clearly established statutory or constitutional right. … The Court held that Mitchell was entitled to qualified immunity because it was not clearly established at the time that such wiretaps were unconstitutional. Id. at 2818.

Peterson v. North Dakota ex rel. North Dakota University System

240 F. Supp. 2d 1055 · District Court, D. North Dakota · Jan 3, 2003

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity shields state officials from civil liability when their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. … In other words, the qualified immunity defense fails if the official violates a clearly established constitutional or statutory right of which a reasonable person would have known.

Vista McDuffie v. Hopper

982 F. Supp. 817 · District Court, M.D. Alabama · Oct 23, 1997

The opinion does so by jumping directly to a discussion of whether the doctor had violated clearly established law, Id. at 721, assuming, without deciding, that qualified immunity necessarily follows § 1983 liability. … Again, however, the court does so by jumping straight to an analysis of clearly established law; it does not address the question whether private party doctors are entitled to claim qualified immunity at all.

Howard v. Wilkinson

305 F. Supp. 3d 1327 · District Court, M.D. Florida · Apr 2, 2018

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 would have known … The Plaintiffs have met their burden of establishing that the Officer Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity. 3.

Meas v. City and County of San Francisco

681 F. Supp. 2d 1128 · District Court, N.D. California · Feb 9, 2010

A court considering a claim of qualified immunity must determine whether the plaintiff has alleged the deprivation of an actual constitutional right and whether such right was clearly established such that it would be clear … Here, defendants argue that the officers are entitled to qualified immunity as to the false arrest and malicious prosecution claims because none of their actions violated clearly established law.

de Veloz v. Miami-Dade County

255 F. Supp. 3d 1222 · District Court, S.D. Florida · Jun 8, 2017

Once a qualified immunity defense has been asserted, unless Plaintiffs’ “allegations state a claim of violation1 of clearly established law, a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal before the commencement … Qualified immunity protects government officials “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights.”

Watson v. Norris

729 F. Supp. 581 · District Court, M.D. Tennessee · Dec 7, 1989

of [his] conduct as measured by reference to clearly established law. … The current test, as summarized by the Sixth Circuit, is this: if the qualified immunity defense is raised, the plaintiff must show a violation of the constitutional right or rights and “that these rights were so clearly