Case law

Mayronne v. Vaught

843 F. Supp. 1096 · District Court, E.D. Louisiana · Feb 23, 1994

Because it is not a clearly established constitutional right, Mr. Mayronne’s claims for malicious prosecution are barred by the theory of qualified immunity. 3. … Mayronne was not clearly established, thus barring his claim on the theory of qualified immunity. 4.

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.

Vincent v. Sitnewski

117 F. Supp. 3d 329 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jun 25, 2015

Qualified Immunity “The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials ‘from civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … And it *343 would undermine the key virtue of qualified immunity doctrine — that if nothing else, the “clearly established” test is objective.

Irvin Morales v. CO John Doe #2, Jon Fouts, Roderick Greenwood, and Keith Forcier

2020 DNH 046 · District Court, D. New Hampshire · Mar 24, 2020

Qualified Immunity “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 … “‘[C]learly established law’ should not be defined ‘at a high level of generality.’ . . . [T]he clearly established law must be ‘particularized’ to the facts of the case.” White v. Pauly, 137 S.

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.

Kelley v. Troy State University

923 F. Supp. 1494 · District Court, M.D. Alabama · May 2, 1996

Thus, a government official is not entitled to qualified immunity where the plaintiff demonstrates that the official’s actions violated a clearly established right. Sims v. … They correctly point out that, to lose qualified immunity, a government official must infringe a right that was clearly established at the time of the infringement. Lassiter v.

Stanley v. Cooper

996 F. Supp. 316 · District Court, S.D. New York · Mar 10, 1998

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY The doctrine of qualified immunity entitles public officers to be shielded from liability for damages unless their conduct violates clearly established constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … But such actions did not so clearly violate Stanley’s rights that defendant Cooper should be deprived of the defense of qualified immunity.

Seals v. City of Lancaster

553 F. Supp. 2d 427 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 21, 2008

Officer Laser is not entitled to summary judgment based on qualified immunity Officer Laser also contends he is entitled to summary judgment on a theory of qualified immunity. The Supreme Court in Saucier v. … With respect to the second factor in a qualified immunity analysis under Saucier, the court must determine whether the right that was violated was clearly established, or, in other words, “whether it would be clear to a reasonable

Nieves v. County of Monroe

761 F. Supp. 2d 48 · District Court, W.D. New York · Jan 25, 2011

Qualified immunity shields public officials from an action for civil damages, to the extent that their challenged acts do not violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would … Specifically, the doctrine applies where it is “objectively reasonable” for an official to believe that his conduct did not violate a plaintiffs constitutional rights, in light of clearly established law and in the information

Smith v. Wolfe

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 6, 2020

State officials - 18 - have qualified immunity from claims for monetary relief if their conduct “does not violate a clearly established statutory or constitutional right of which a reasonable … As to the question of whether the right at issue was clearly established when the Defendants’ conduct took place, courts should not “define clearly established law at a high level of generality.” Id. at 716.

Cullen v. Mattaliano

690 F. Supp. 93 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jun 2, 1988

Defendants Mattaliano and MacDonald’s Claims of Qualified Immunity A. Qualified Immunity. … The Supreme Court devised an objective test for qualified immunity in Harlow v.

Doe v. Terry

District Court, E.D. Michigan · Nov 28, 2023

Qualified immunity is “an affirmative defense shielding governmental officials from liability so long as their conduct does ‘not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … Additionally, because the law was clearly established at the time of Defendant’s actions, Defendant is not entitled to qualified immunity.

Reiner v. Dandurand

33 F. Supp. 3d 1018 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Jul 16, 2014

“[G]overnmental actors performing discretionary functions enjoy qualified immunity and are ‘shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … James did not do so; thus, the Officers’ decision to pull James over for a traffic violation is also not a violation of a clearly established constitutional right. 3 Defendants are therefore entitled to qualified immunity

Plascencia v. City of St. George

705 F. Supp. 2d 1276 · District Court, D. Utah · Mar 9, 2010

Qualified immunity generally shields government officials performing discretionary functions from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights … in which the court answers these questions is up to the court. 87 “Qualified immunity is applicable unless the official’s conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right.” 88 “Qualified immunity is ‘an immunity

MacK v. Holcomb

446 F. Supp. 2d 777 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Jul 12, 2006

If plaintiff sufficiently alleges a constitutional violation, defendant may be entitled to qualified immunity if the constitutional right was not clearly established when the violation occurred. Id. … Clearly Established Law The issue for purposes of qualified immunity is whether Mack’s First Amendment rights were clearly established at the time of the alleged violation.

Hunt v. Bd. of Regents of the Univ. of New Mex.

338 F. Supp. 3d 1251 · District Court, D. New Mexico · Sep 6, 2018

Clearly Established Law Qualified immunity attaches when an official's conduct " 'does not violate *1260 clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.' " Mullenix v. … Thus, they cannot be used to demonstrate "clearly established law" within the meaning of a qualified immunity analysis.

Tittle v. Raines

231 F. Supp. 2d 537 · District Court, N.D. Texas · Aug 29, 2002

Raines and Rooney contend that they are entitled to qualified immunity regarding Tittle’s claims of false arrest, malicious prosecution and conspiracy because they did not violate clearly established laws of which a reasonable … Conversely, an official’s conduct is not protected by qualified immunity if, in fight of clearly established pre-existing law, it was apparent the conduct, when undertaken, would be -a violation of the right at issue.

Sutherland v. Mizer

625 F. Supp. 2d 492 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · May 6, 2008

Inasmuch as he is the party who has the responsibility of challenging the qualified immunity defense, Sutherland has not sufficiently pled a violation of a clearly established right. … Because Sutherland has not sufficiently alleged the violation of a clearly established right, the Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity for Count V.

Bordas v. Washtenaw County

1 F. Supp. 2d 680 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Apr 2, 1998

A claim of qualified immunity depends on whether the defendant’s conduct violated a clearly established statutory or constitutional right of which a reasonable person would have known. Id. at 638-40 ; Harlow v. … To defeat a motion for summary judgment based on a claim of qualified immunity in the Sixth Circuit, a plaintiff must establish two things.

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.”