Case law

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’

Powell v. Fugate

364 F. Supp. 3d 709 · District Court, E.D. Kentucky · Mar 8, 2019

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity shields public officials "from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … The qualified immunity inquiry is twofold, requiring assessment of "(1) whether the facts alleged by the plaintiff make out the violation of a constitutional right and (2) whether the right at issue was 'clearly established

Church of Universal Love & Music v. Fayette County

892 F. Supp. 2d 736 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 31, 2012

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY Qualified immunity involves a two-prong inquiry. … I find, therefore, that the pertinent law was not “clearly established” for purposes of qualified immunity.

Shaw v. Oconee County, Ga.

863 F. Supp. 1578 · District Court, M.D. Georgia · Oct 11, 1994

Qualified Immunity The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals has adopted an objective-reasonableness test for determining whether a government official is entitled to qualified immunity. See Courson v. … Under this analysis, the defendant is entitled to qualified immunity if either (1) the law was not clearly established, or (2) the law was clearly established but the defendant did not violate the law. Id. n. 14.

Quartararo v. Catterson

917 F. Supp. 919 · District Court, E.D. New York · Jan 25, 1996

With respect to the three categories of defendants who now seek dismissal on the basis of qualified immunity, the plaintiff alleges the existence of two distinct types of clearly established rights: (1) a clearly-established … a clearly established federal right.

Buckley v. BARBOUR COUNTY, ALA.

624 F. Supp. 2d 1335 · District Court, M.D. Alabama · Dec 15, 2008

An official is not entitled to qualified immunity if (1) the official’s conduct violated a constitutional or statutory right; and (2) the violation was “ ‘clearly established.’ ” Id. (quoting Saucier v. … Gamble thus fails the first prong of the qualified immunity test. The violation was also “clearly established,” placing Gamble on fair notice of an unconstitutional violation.

Brown v. Fogle

867 F. Supp. 2d 61 · District Court, District of Columbia · May 17, 2012

Qualified immunity is “a defense that shields officials from suit if their conduct ‘d[id] not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’ ” Bame v. … "If no constitutional right would have been violated were the allegations established, there is no necessity for further inquiries concerning qualified immunity." Id.

Arias v. Amador

61 F. Supp. 3d 960 · District Court, E.D. California · Nov 21, 2014

Qualified immunity shields 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 … . *971 The qualified immunity inquiry has two prongs: (1) “whether the facts that a plaintiff has ... shown ... make out a violation of a constitutional right,” and (2) “whether the right at issue was ‘clearly established

Escalera-Saldado v. United States

261 F. Supp. 3d 163 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Sep 26, 2016

The qualified immunity doctrine “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 … To do so, the plaintiff must show that (1) “defendants violated a statutory or constitutional right,” and that (2) “the right was clearly established at the time.” Morales, 794 F.3d at 214 .

Jackson v. Brown

134 F. Supp. 3d 1237 · District Court, E.D. California · Sep 28, 2015

Accordingly, the Court skips the first step of the Saucier qualified immunity analysis. b. Defendants Did Not Violate Clearly Established Law. … The second prong of the qualified immunity analysis requires the Court to determine whether the allegedly violated constitutional right was clearly established at the time that Defendants allegedly violated that right.

McClendon v. May

37 F. Supp. 2d 1371 · District Court, S.D. Georgia · Feb 3, 1999

James, 157 F.3d 1271 (11th Cir.1998) establishes the current test for qualified immunity in the Eleventh Circuit. … Finally, an unofficial opinion of a state attorney general, even if it had been issued before the conduct occurred, would not constitute clearly established law for qualified immunity purposes.

Cunningham v. Snyder

472 F. Supp. 2d 1023 · District Court, S.D. Illinois · Sep 19, 2006

To defeat a qualified immunity defense, a plaintiff bears the burden of demonstrating that “the legal norms allegedly violated by the defendant were clearly established at the time of the challenged actions or, ... the law … See Greenberg, 840 F.2d at 472 (quoting Harlow, 457 U.S. at 818 , 102 S.Ct. 2727 ) (observing that the principle underlying the doctrine of qualified immunity is that “[i]f the law at the time was not clearly established,

Haddad v. Fromson

154 F. Supp. 2d 1085 · District Court, W.D. Michigan · May 2, 2001

The only issue for this Court is whether Fromson violated clearly established federal rights guaranteed by the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. 1. … Even if this Court were to find some arguable equal protection or due process violation, Fromson would nevertheless be entitled to qualified immunity unless Plaintiff could show that his rights were “clearly established”

Jones v. Lieber

579 F. Supp. 2d 175 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 30, 2008

By definition, qualified immunity is not absolute. … However, “[a] plaintiff who seeks damages for violation of constitutional or statutory rights may overcome the defendant official’s qualified immunity only by showing that those rights were clearly established at the time

Murphy v. Carroll

202 F. Supp. 2d 421 · District Court, D. Maryland · May 10, 2002

To determine the applicability of qualified immunity, this court follows a two-step analysis. … “Clearly established,” for pin-poses of qualified immunity analysis, means that the “contours of the right must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that right.”

Corrigan v. District of Columbia

254 F. Supp. 3d 184 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 8, 2017

established right had occurred and that the officers were entitled to qualified immunity. … Consequently, whether qualified immunity applies “‘generally turns on the objective legal reasonableness of the [official's] action, assessed in light of the legal rules that were clearly established at the time.’”

Potera-Haskins v. Gamble

519 F. Supp. 2d 1110 · District Court, D. Montana · Sep 28, 2007

This examination, in turn, invokes the Court’s obligation to address and resolve the threshold issue of Defendants’ claim of qualified immunity. 6 Qualified Immunity “Qualified immunity is ‘an entitlement not to stand trial … Finally, “[i]f the law did not put the [employer] on notice that his conduct would be clearly unlawful, summary judgment based on qualified immunity is appropriate.”

Cook v. City of Groton

952 F. Supp. 101 · District Court, D. Connecticut · Feb 6, 1997

A police officer is entitled to qualified immunity unless his conduct violated a right that was clearly established at the time. … Because the contours of the right on which the plaintiff relies were not clearly established at the pertinent time, the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. 3.

Camuglia v. City of Albuquerque

375 F. Supp. 2d 1299 · District Court, D. New Mexico · Apr 28, 2005

SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND 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 … It is the plaintiffs burden to establish that a law is clearly established. Pueblo Neighborhood Health Centers, Inc. v.

Moxley v. Town of Walkersville

601 F. Supp. 2d 648 · District Court, D. Maryland · Mar 6, 2009

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 … Nonetheless, “qualified immunity ... will be upheld on a [Rule] 12(b)(6) motion only when the immunity is established on the face of the complaint,” Hafley v.