Case law

Masonoff v. DuBois

336 F. Supp. 2d 54 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Sep 17, 2004

To determine whether the defendants here are entitled to the shield of qualified immunity, I must inquire: “(1) whether the facts as alleged make out a constitutional violation; (2) whether that right was clearly established … Was the right clearly established?

Diaz-Morales v. Rubio-Paredes

170 F. Supp. 3d 276 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Mar 21, 2016

Absolute and Qualified Immunity 1. … For these, only qualified immunity would be available.

Jefferson v. Ashley

643 F. Supp. 227 · District Court, D. Oregon · Aug 8, 1986

Whether an official prevails on a defense of qualified immunity depends on the "objective reasonableness of [his] conduct as measured by reference to clearly established law.” Id. … Plaintiff has failed to show that defendants violated any clearly established law or right.

Garner v. Steger

69 F. Supp. 3d 581 · District Court, W.D. Virginia · Oct 9, 2014

Third, defendants argue they are entitled to qualified immunity because they did not violate plaintiffs clearly established rights. … The court next turns to the second prong of qualified immunity — whether the employment action here violated Garner’s clearly established rights.

Gustafson v. Thomas

75 F. Supp. 3d 876 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Dec 16, 2014

City of Chic., 865 F.2d 827 , 846 (7th Cir. 1989) (examining only cases decided before the events at issue in analyzing how clearly established the law was for qualified immunity). … Whatever the implications of potential violations of Illinois law, these alleged violations have no bearing on whether the law was clearly established for qualified immunity purposes. .

NEW YORK STATE NAT. ORGAN. FOR WOMEN v. Cuomo

14 F. Supp. 2d 424 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jul 24, 1998

Although violation of state rules or regulations may inform the court's analysis of a qualified immunity defense, the defense may only be defeated by the court's determination that the official violated "clearly established … The court must look to Supreme Court and Second Circuit precedent in evaluating whether the law relevant to the constitutional issues raised here is "clearly established" for qualified immunity purposes. See Elder v.

Bethune-Hill v. Virginia State Board of Elections

114 F. Supp. 3d 323 · District Court, E.D. Virginia · May 26, 2015

Gillock, the Supreme Court acknowledged its grant of “common-law absolute immunity from civil suit” to state legislators in Tenney v. Brandhove, but qualified its holding. Id. at 372 , 100 S.Ct. 1185 . … The state legislative privilege — like state legislative immunity — likewise may become qualified based on the nature of the claim at issue.

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

Burge v. Ferguson

619 F. Supp. 2d 1225 · District Court, M.D. Florida · Dec 16, 2008

established Fourth Amendment right. 12 Accordingly, qualified immunity is unavailable at this stage. … But see Thomas, 463 F.3d at 293-94 (concluding that “a plaintiff has no obligation to plead a violation of clearly established law in order to avoid dismissal on qualified immunity grounds.”). 8 ."

Lattany v. Four Unknown U.S. Marshals

845 F. Supp. 262 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 10, 1994

I must next decide whether the defendants were entitled to qualified immunity because the constitutional rights violated by the defendants were not “clearly established” at the time of the incidents. … There is no meaningful dispute regarding qualified immunity. The right of both convicted prisoners and pre-trial detainees not to suffer deliberate indifference to serious medical needs is clearly established.

Hogan ex rel. J.H. v. County of Lewis

929 F. Supp. 2d 130 · District Court, N.D. New York · Mar 8, 2013

The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials acting in their capacity from liability for civil damages as long as their conduct does not “violate clearly-established rights of which an objectively reasonable … The party invoking qualified immunity bears the burden of offering proof that it was objectively reasonable for her to believe that her actions did not violate a clearly established right and that she is entitled to qualified

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

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.”

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

Muszik v. Town of Redington Shores, Florida

District Court, M.D. Florida · May 20, 2024

Callahan, 55 U.S. 223, 236 (2009) (courts considering qualified immunity are permitted to address whether a constitutional right is clearly established before determining whether it was violated). … A plaintiff seeking to meet her burden under the second step of the qualified immunity analysis can demonstrate that a right or law was clearly established in three ways. See, e.g., Loftus v.

Thomas v. Town of Salisbury

277 F. Supp. 3d 161 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Sep 30, 2017

right that the official has violated was clearly established at the time of the violation.” … Justice Thompson argued that the majority had construed “the clearly-established-right prong” of the qualified immunity analysis too narrowly, and required that the precedent be too directly on point before an official could

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

Session v. Wargo

District Court, D. Colorado · Aug 12, 2021

rights that (1) were “clearly 9 established” at the time of the conduct, and (2) would have been known to a reasonable person in the official’s position … be undertaken and qualified immunity is appropriate).

Pisciotti v. County of Wayne

76 F. Supp. 2d 307 · District Court, W.D. New York · Dec 21, 1999

“The doctrine of qualified immunity ‘shields government officials from liability for damages on account of their performance of discretionary official functions insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established … Further, even if the plaintiffs rights were clearly established, a government actor is entitled to qualified immunity if at the time of the challenged act it was objectively reasonable for him to believe that his actions

Johnson v. Williams

584 F. Supp. 2d 97 · District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 3, 2008

In this case, however, even if the law on anonymous stops had been clearly established, the officers would still be entitled to *105 immunity because the uncontroverted evidence shows that they did not know the tip was anonymous … Qualified Immunity From Excessive Force Claim The officers are entitled to qualified immunity from plaintiffs claim of *106 excessive force.