Case law

Prager v. LaFAVER

5 F. Supp. 2d 906 · District Court, D. Kansas · Apr 10, 1998

Once a defendant to a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action raises a qualified immunity defense, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to show both facts and law to establish that the defendant is not entitled to a qualified immunity. … City of Birmingham, 963 F.2d 1481, 1487 (11th Cir.1992) (rejecting the qualified immunity defense at the motion to dismiss stage, but emphasizing defendants’ right to assert the qualified immunity defense in subsequent proceedings

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.

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.

Schaefer v. Whitted

121 F. Supp. 3d 701 · District Court, W.D. Texas · Aug 5, 2015

“Qualified immunity protects public officials from suit unless their conduct violates a clearly established constitutional right.” Brumfield v. … However, to surmount qualified immunity, Plaintiff has the burden of demonstrating the Second Amendment right Officer Whitted is alleged to have violated is “clearly established” in the more “particularized sense,” such that

McCabe v. Caleel

739 F. Supp. 387 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Apr 30, 1990

action is a violation) violates a clearly established right. … Application of the qualified immunity concept to McCabe’s situation is simple: It has not been “clearly established” even now, let alone when Board’s members acted back in the late 1970s, that the fact (if it is a fact) of

Niles v. Town of Wakefield

172 F. Supp. 3d 429 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Mar 24, 2016

Qualified Immunity ■ The First Circuit recently described the contours of the qualified immunity defense in detail as follows: The rules for granting qualified immunity are well established, “The doctrine of qualified immunity … ” subject to qualified immunity).

Herrera v. Santa Fe Public Schools

41 F. Supp. 3d 1027 · District Court, D. New Mexico · Aug 29, 2014

(“Robles has successfully established the violation of a clearly established right and therefore qualified immunity is not appropriate. … Clearly Established Rights in the Qualifíed Immunity Analysis.

Rivers v. O'BRIEN

83 F. Supp. 2d 328 · District Court, N.D. New York · Jan 21, 2000

Even where the plaintiffs federal rights and the scope of the official’s permissible conduct are clearly established, the qualified immunity defense protects a government actor if it was ‘objectively reasonable’ for him to … In order to trump qualified immunity, the Plaintiffs must demonstrate that (1) Defendants’ conduct violated any of the Plaintiffs’ clearly established rights; and (2) that these rights would have been known to a reasonable

Lopez Quinonez v. PUERTO RICO NAT. GUARD

488 F. Supp. 2d 112 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · May 18, 2007

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY Qualified immunity shields public officials performing discretionary functions from civil damages, so long as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights, of which … We have used a three-prong analysis for evaluating qualified immunity claims.

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

Orraca Figueroa v. Torres Torres

288 F. Supp. 2d 176 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Oct 14, 2003

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY Defendants have moved for summary judgment, alleging that they are immune from suit under the doctrine of qualified immunity. … The general rule regarding qualified immunity is that government officials are immune from suit and liability when their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory authority or constitutional rights, which a reasonable

Tunnell v. Crosby

657 F. Supp. 2d 1263 · District Court, N.D. Florida · Aug 24, 2009

This is so because the motions to dismiss plainly must be granted anyway based on qualified immunity. Qualified immunity protects “all but the plainly incompetent or those who knowingly violate the law.” Malley v. … The defendants thus have qualified immunity. See, e.g., Anderson v.

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.

Brown v. Smythe

780 F. Supp. 274 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 7, 1992

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity serves to insulate governmental officials from liability for civil damages when the discretionary conduct of that official “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … The defendants bear the burden of establishing the defense of qualified immunity, and a plaintiff may overcome the official’s defense by demonstrating that his or her clearly established rights were knowingly or recklessly

Ryan v. Mesa Unified School District

64 F. Supp. 3d 1356 · District Court, D. Arizona · Dec 5, 2014

Count I Goodman argues that Count I fails both prongs of the qualified immunity test. … prayer before softball games” is unconstitutional. 52 In sum, Goodman argues that he is entitled to qualified immunity because the law regarding “the intersection of public schools and religion is far from clearly established

Burhans v. Lopez

24 F. Supp. 3d 375 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jun 10, 2014

An official is entitled to qualified immunity if his or her “conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” DiStiso v. … Finally, Silver asserts that he is entitled to qualified immunity under state and city law.

Mitchell v. Luckenbill

680 F. Supp. 2d 672 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 5, 2010

“Qualified immunity shields government officials from civil damages liability ‘insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known … was clearly established at the time of the violation.”

Young v. Keohane

809 F. Supp. 1185 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 13, 1992

In some cases, the qualified immunity issue may also turn on “the complementary question whether defendant had a clearly established duty towards plaintiff.” Ryan v. … What is “clearly established” law for qualified immunity purposes, however, commands only some, “not precise factual correspondence between relevant precedents and the conduct at issue.” Ryan, 860 F.2d at 1208 .

Caceres v. Port Authority of New York & New Jersey

646 F. Supp. 2d 412 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jun 19, 2009

Notwithstanding the violation of a clearly established constitutional or statutory right, in the case of an arrest an officer may still establish qualified immunity under federal law by showing either that “it was objectively … Therefore, the only issue is whether Lieutenant Sangiorgi is entitled to qualified immunity notwithstanding his violation of the plaintiffs clearly established constitutional right — that is, whether Lieutenant Sangiorgi’

Dixon v. Bannister

845 F. Supp. 2d 1136 · District Court, D. Nevada · Feb 25, 2012

Alternatively, Defendants argue they are entitled to qualified immunity because Plaintiff cannot show a clearly established right to receive cosmetic dental services. … Plaintiff therefore has failed to demonstrate a clearly established right and Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity.