Case law

Estate of Holmes v. Somers

387 F. Supp. 3d 1233 · District Court, D. Kansas · Apr 17, 2019

Qualified immunity "shields public officials ... from damages actions unless their conduct was unreasonable in light of clearly established law." Gann v. … When the defense of qualified immunity is asserted, a plaintiff must show: "(1) that the defendant's actions violated a federal constitutional or statutory right, and, if so, (2) that the right was clearly established at

Leghart Ex Rel. Leghart v. Hauk

25 F. Supp. 2d 748 · District Court, W.D. Texas · Nov 23, 1998

As such, “[qualified immunity protects a police officer from liability if a reasonable competent law enforcement officer would not have known that his actions violated clearly established law.” Harper v. … “The first step is to determine whether the plaintiff has alleged a violation of a clearly established constitutional right.” Id.

Comfort v. Town of Pittsfield

924 F. Supp. 1219 · District Court, D. Maine · Apr 12, 1996

To overcome qualified immunity, a plaintiff must first allege the violation of a clearly established constitutional or statutory right. Id. … The qualified immunity inquiry begins, as always, with the alleged clearly established rights at issue. Here too the inquiry ends.

Sharkany v. Bryce

District Court, D. Connecticut · Apr 8, 2020

Qualified Immunity Officer Bryce is also entitled to qualified immunity from liability on the Plaintiff’s claims. … did not violate a clearly established right.

Owens v. Zade

District Court, D. Colorado · Jun 20, 2023

6 Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, “government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established … Zade in her individual capacity at trial if he can demonstrate that the right at issue is clearly established. See [Doc. 37 at 12–13 (invoking qualified immunity)].

Anderson v. Board of Regents

822 F. Supp. 2d 1342 · District Court, N.D. Georgia · Sep 30, 2011

Qualified immunity confers complete protection upon government officials sued in their personal capacities unless their conduct “ ‘violate[s] clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … In addition, in order to avoid summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds, plaintiff must show that the property or liberty interest was well established and that the process he received was clearly inadequate.

Thomas v. Harrisburg City Police Department

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 15, 2021

for purposes of qualified immunity.” … a defendant’s conduct at issue did not violate a “clearly established” right.

Bell v. City of Los Angeles

835 F. Supp. 2d 836 · District Court, C.D. California · Dec 20, 2011

establish constitutional precedent on questions that do not frequently arise in cases in which a qualified immunity defense is unavailable; and when few judicial resources would be conserved by considering only the “clearly … “An officer conducting a search is entitled to qualified immunity where clearly established law does not show that the search violated the Fourth Amendment.” Pearson v.

Clayton v. City of Kingston

44 F. Supp. 2d 177 · District Court, N.D. New York · Apr 23, 1999

Overcoming qualified immunity entails a two-part process: “First, a plaintiff must allege the violation of a clearly established constitutional or statutory right. … A defendant is entitled to qualified immunity on a motion to dismiss if the allegations of the complaint fail to “state a claim of violation of clearly established law.” See Connell v.

Foley v. Town of Lee

871 F. Supp. 2d 39 · District Court, D. New Hampshire · May 9, 2012

“The defendants are entitled to qualified immunity unless (1) the facts alleged or shown by the plaintiff make out a violation of a constitutional right and (2) such right was clearly established at the time of the defendants … “A right is clearly established only if it would be clear to a reasonable officer that his conduct was unlawful in the situation he confronted.” Id.

Lilly v. Lewiston-Porter Central School District

853 F. Supp. 2d 346 · District Court, W.D. New York · Dec 20, 2011

qualified immunity did not apply. … Then we consider if the violated right was clearly established at the time of the conduct....

Howard v. Board of Education of Sycamore Community Unit School District No. 427

893 F. Supp. 808 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jul 21, 1995

Qualified Immunity Weleker contends he is entitled to qualified immunity as to plaintiffs section 1983 claim because there is no clearly established law that he had a duty to take action in response to the students’ allegedly … Absent allegations stating a violation of clearly established law, a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal before the commencement of discovery. Id.

Larsen v. State Employees' Retirement System

553 F. Supp. 2d 403 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · May 15, 2008

“Qualified immunity shields state officials from suit when their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Burella v. … “If no constitutional right would have been violated were the allegations established, there is no necessity for further inquiries concerning qualified immunity.

Smith v. Upson County, Ga.

859 F. Supp. 1504 · District Court, M.D. Georgia · Aug 8, 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. A.

Schroeder v. County of Nassau

158 F. Supp. 3d 123 · District Court, E.D. New York · Jan 28, 2016

violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’” … “Qualified immunity is an affirmative defense that the defendants have the burden of raising in their answer and establishing at trial or on a motion for summary judgment.”

Morales v. Chadbourne

996 F. Supp. 2d 19 · District Court, D. Rhode Island · Feb 12, 2014

established right in this regard, qualified immunity attaches to these defendants on the procedural due process claim. … These constitutional principles are axioms that are not questionable or in doubt; they are and have been “clearly established,” and thus the Federal Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity.

Campbell v. District of Columbia

245 F. Supp. 3d 78 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 29, 2017

“Qualified immunity prevents officials who violate the law from having to defend against lawsuits for money damages unless the legal rules that were clearly established at the time the action was taken gave those officials … Accordingly, under clearly established precedent, Defendants are not entitled to summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity because, on the undisputed facts, the officers would have had “fair warning” that they

Lebron v. Rumsfeld

764 F. Supp. 2d 787 · District Court, D. South Carolina · Feb 17, 2011

Qualified Immunity Defendants further argue that even if Padilla could assert a viable cause of action, they would still be protected from liability by the doctrine of qualified immunity. … are entitled to qualified immunity on all of Plaintiffs’ claims.

White v. Martin

26 F. Supp. 2d 385 · District Court, D. Connecticut · Oct 19, 1998

In a section 1983 action, qualified immunity shields an official sued in his individual capacity “from liability for civil damages insofar as [his] conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 526 , 105 S.Ct. 2806 , 86 L.Ed.2d 411 (1985), the Supreme Court held that “[ujnless plaintiffs allegations state a claim of violation of clearly established law, a defendant pleading qualified immunity

Manzer v. TOWN OF ANSON

771 F. Supp. 2d 121 · District Court, D. Maine · Mar 23, 2011

The Plaintiffs then argue that the second element of the qualified immunity test — whether their rights were clearly established — is met. Id. at 12-13. … The Barton Court, in its own qualified immunity analysis, held that in 2006 and 2007, it was clearly established that a campaign of harassment could support a First Amendment retaliation claim if the harassment would deter