Case law

Hanas v. Inner City Christian Outreach, Inc.

542 F. Supp. 2d 683 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Feb 29, 2008

’s constitutional rights were clearly established. … Hanas’s right under the Establishment Clause to be free from state coercion was clearly established since 2001. See Inouye v.

El-Ghazzawy v. Berthiaume

708 F. Supp. 2d 874 · District Court, D. Minnesota · Apr 16, 2010

Berthiaume is still entitled to qualified immunity, in the face of a constitutional violation, if the constitutional right *885 at issue was not “clearly established” at the time the violation occurred. … Therefore, Berthiaume has not met her burden in establishing her right to qualified immunity and El-Ghazzawy’s Fourth-Amendment claim will stand. II.

Radloff v. City of Oelwein

284 F. Supp. 2d 1145 · District Court, N.D. Iowa · May 19, 2003

Conclusions of Law Qualified Immunity A government official who performs discretionary functions is protected from suit under the doctrine of qualified immunity as long as the official’s conduct did not violate clearly established … The officers are not entitled to qualified immunity on the plaintiffs claim of excessive force. The right against unreasonable seizure of one’s person is clearly established law.

McKeon v. Daley

101 F. Supp. 2d 79 · District Court, N.D. New York · May 24, 2000

Qualified immunity is available to protect conduct violating a clearly established constitutional right where the governmental official had an objectively reasonable and good faith belief that the action taken was lawful. … of qualified immunity.

Kesterson v. Kent State Univ.

345 F. Supp. 3d 855 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Nov 5, 2018

The qualified immunity doctrine shields government officials performing discretionary actions from civil damages liability if their actions did not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a … Nonetheless, Linder is still entitled to qualified immunity for this claim if the constitutional rights implicated were not clearly established.

Nigro v. Carrasquillo

152 F. Supp. 3d 1364 · District Court, S.D. Florida · Dec 17, 2015

Accordingly, Officer Carrasquillo is entitled to qualified immunity. … Qualified immunity protects government officials so long as “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Wood v.

Garcia Ex Rel. Merino v. Brown

442 F. Supp. 2d 132 · District Court, S.D. New York · Aug 2, 2006

“The doctrine of qualified immunity shields police officers acting in their official capacity from suits for damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 , unless their actions violate clearly-established rights of which an objectively … The Circuit concluded, however, that this type of implicit liability was not so clearly established as to bar dismissal on the ground of qualified immunity. Pena, 432 F.3d at 114-15 . 3 .

Caffey v. Johnson

883 F. Supp. 128 · District Court, E.D. Texas · Mar 29, 1995

The doctrine of qualified immunity protects against individual liability for civil damages to officials “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … When considering a claim of qualified immunity, courts engage in a bifurcated analysis. First, it must be determined whether the plaintiff has alleged the violation of a clearly established constitutional right.

Goldwire v. City of Philadelphia

130 F. Supp. 3d 936 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 11, 2015

An officer asserting an' entitlement to qualified immunity must claim that his conduct did not violate a clearly established constitutional right of which a reasonable officer would have known. Behrens v. … violated a constitutional right, and (2) whether the right was clearly established.

Monks v. Marlinga

732 F. Supp. 749 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Feb 14, 1990

Thus, neither is dispositive of the current qualified immunity issue. … in fact is not clearly established today.

Harris v. Mississippi Valley State University

899 F. Supp. 1561 · District Court, N.D. Mississippi · Sep 22, 1995

In examining the individual Defendants’ claims of qualified immunity on summary judgment, the Court in this case must: first inquire whether [Plaintiff] has alleged the violation of a clearly established constitutional right … has not demonstrated that such a constitutional right was “clearly established” for the purpose of refuting Defendants’ qualified immunity defense. 20 When the affirmative defense of qualified immunity is raised, the Plaintiff

Romero v. City of Clanton

220 F. Supp. 2d 1313 · District Court, M.D. Alabama · Sep 11, 2002

When qualified immunity is asserted as a defense, a court must first determine whether the violation of a constitutional right is asserted, then determine whether that right was clearly established. See Wilson v. … is clearly established.

Farrelly v. City of Concord

902 F. Supp. 2d 178 · District Court, D. New Hampshire · Oct 2, 2012

Carroll are not entitled to qualified immunity because the unconstitutionality of RSA 644:4, 1(f) was clearly established by the New Hampshire Supreme Court’s decision in Pierce . … Even so, the officers are entitled to qualified immunity because Farrelly’s right to send the e-mails in question was not clearly established at the time of his arrest.

Hora v. Risner

District Court, S.D. Ohio · May 24, 2021

immunity analysis is whether the law was clearly established. 2. … Clearly Established Law? In Plumhoff v.

Clouser v. City of Thornton

676 F. Supp. 228 · District Court, D. Colorado · Dec 31, 1987

Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, “government officials performing discretionary functions ... are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … When the affirmative defense of qualified immunity is raised, the plaintiff has the burden of convincing the court that his federal constitutional or statutory rights were clearly established at the time of the questioned

Stewart v. City of Prairie Village

904 F. Supp. 2d 1143 · District Court, D. Kansas · Oct 17, 2012

immunity, Plaintiff must show that the right was clearly established. 23 The Court “cannot find qualified immunity wherever we have a new fact pattern.” 24 The Tenth Circuit has “shifted the qualified immunity analysis from … A plaintiff must show a violation of a clearly established constitutional right for each defendant in a § 1983 suit who claims qualified immunity; 47 § 1983 does not give a plaintiff a right of action against an individual

Adams v. City of Shreveport

269 F. Supp. 3d 743 · District Court, W.D. Louisiana · Aug 28, 2017

A defendant who can validly raise a qualified immunity defense will enjoy its protection so long as the allegedly violated constitutional right was not clearly established at the time of the violation. See id. … This right is a clearly established right for the purposes of a qualified immunity analysis. See id.

Hamrick v. City of Eustace

732 F. Supp. 1390 · District Court, E.D. Texas · Mar 19, 1990

Those Courts go on to reason that if the law which the defendant is alleged to have violated is clearly established, then the qualified immunity defense must fail. Id. … If the law is not clearly established, the defendant is immune. Id.

Citrano v. Allen Correctional Center

891 F. Supp. 312 · District Court, W.D. Louisiana · Jun 14, 1995

Nor does it follow that the Court intended to establish a bright line rule that private parties can never be shielded by qualified immunity. … This immunity is only defeated if the official took the complained of action “with the mahcious intention to cause a deprivation of rights,” or the official violated clearly established statutory or constitutional rights

Parker v. Lane

688 F. Supp. 353 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · May 19, 1988

Qualified Immunity Defendants’ final contention is that they are immune from suit because their conduct did not violate any “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known … Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 526 , 105 S.Ct. 2806, 2815-16 , 86 L.Ed.2d 411 (1985) makes clear, qualified immunity encompasses not only immunity from liability but immunity from suit.