Case law

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.

Hodgson v. Mississippi Department of Corrections

963 F. Supp. 776 · District Court, E.D. Wisconsin · Apr 30, 1997

The Defendants, however, insist that this claim be dismissed on the ground that they are entitled to qualified immunity from suit. 13 Government officials may raise qualified immunity as an affirmative defense to actions … Once a defendant has raised a qualified immunity defense, the plaintiff bears the burden of demonstrating the violation of a clearly established right. See Kernats, 35 F.3d at 1176 (citing Rakovich, 850 F.2d at 1209 ).

White v. Board of Trustees of the University of Alabama

31 F. Supp. 2d 953 · District Court, N.D. Alabama · Jan 15, 1999

Harbert has set forth a general principle of law, but we have held time and again that clearly established general principles of law will seldom if ever suffice to strip a defendant of qualified immunity. … qualified immunity.

Bennett v. Vidal

267 F. Supp. 3d 487 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jul 25, 2017

Qualified immunity protects government officials performing discretionary functions, such- as arrests, “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … Officer Vidal moves for summary judgment dismissing the plaintiffs claim for malicious prosecution based on qualified immunity.

Thompson v. Williamson County, Tenn.

965 F. Supp. 1026 · District Court, M.D. Tennessee · Apr 17, 1997

the defendant did acts that violate clearly established rights. … In other words, if genuine issues of material fact exist as to whether the defendants actually did commit acts that would violate a clearly established right, then summary judgment on qualified immunity is improper.

Carmack v. Trombley

363 F. Supp. 2d 904 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Mar 31, 2005

Fitzgerald, the Supreme Court held that “government officials performing discretionary functions” are entitled to a qualified immunity from “liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established … to qualified immunity.

Malsh v. Austin

901 F. Supp. 757 · District Court, S.D. New York · Oct 20, 1995

Even where the plaintiffs federal rights and the scope of the official’s permissible conduct are clearly established, the qualified immunity defense protects a government actor if it was “objectively reasonable” for him to … For the plaintiff to overcome the qualified immunity defense, he must demonstrate that he possessed a clearly established constitutional right.

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.

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.

Fletcher v. District of Columbia

481 F. Supp. 2d 156 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 26, 2007

Hence, the second step of the qualified immunity test — whether the constitutional right was clearly established — must be reached here. … The individual defendants are clearly entitled to qualified immunity here.

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)].

Crouse v. South Lebanon Township

668 F. Supp. 2d 664 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 22, 2009

to qualified immunity. … Police officers enjoy qualified immunity unless they violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Wright, 409 F.3d at 599-600.

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.

Bensch v. Metropolitan Dade County

798 F. Supp. 678 · District Court, S.D. Florida · May 4, 1992

Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511 , 105 S.Ct. 2806 , 86 L.Ed.2d 411 (1985), the Supreme Court reiterated: “Unless the plaintiff’s allegations state a claim of violation of clearly established law, a defendant pleading qualified immunity … Qualified immunity is an affirmative defense, however, so it may only be asserted in a 12(b)(6) motion when the “complaint itself establishes ... qualified immunity.” Green v.

MOLINA-AVILES v. District of Columbia

824 F. Supp. 2d 4 · District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 14, 2011

Qualified immunity shields a government official from liability under § 1983 provided the official’s conduct did not violate a clearly established constitutional right of which a reasonable officer would have known. … 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.’ ” Ortiz v.

Boyer v. Petersen

221 F. Supp. 3d 943 · District Court, W.D. Michigan · Oct 27, 2016

Legal Framework: Qualified Immunity “[Government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … Chief Campbell is entitled to qualified immunity. Chief Campbell, on the other hand, is entitled to qualified immunity.

Rapkin v. Rocque

228 F. Supp. 2d 142 · District Court, D. Connecticut · Oct 22, 2002

clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person *146 would have known.” … objectively legally reasonable in light of the legal rules that were clearly established at the time it was taken.

Ratté v. Corrigan

989 F. Supp. 2d 550 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Nov 26, 2013

Hartsfield is not entitled to qualified immunity Hartsfield contends that, to the extent she is not absolutely immune, she is entitled to qualified immunity. She is mistaken. … When government officials perform discretionary functions, they are immune from suit through qualified immunity “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a

Durham v. Rapp

64 F. Supp. 3d 740 · District Court, D. Maryland · Dec 9, 2014

Qualified immunity turns on two inquiries: (1) “whether the facts that a plaintiff has alleged ... or shown ... make out a violation of ■ a constitutional right,” and (2) “whether the right at issue was ‘clearly established … A defendant is entitled to qualified immunity “unless the official’s conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right.” Id.

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