Case law

Vélez-Herrero v. Guzman

330 F. Supp. 2d 62 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Aug 13, 2004

Plaintiff Vélez counters that because her constitutional rights were clearly established at the time of the alleged violation, Defendant Alejandro is, therefore, not entitled to qualified immunity. … We use a three-part test to determine whether an officer is entitled to qualified immunity: (1) whether, as alleged, a constitutional violation has occurred; (2) whether the constitutional right was clearly established at

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.

Horn v. City of Seat Pleasant, Md.

57 F. Supp. 2d 219 · District Court, D. Maryland · Jul 20, 1999

Id. “ ‘If the right was not clearly established at the relevant time or if a reasonable [official] might not have known that his or her conduct violated that right, the [official] is entitled to immunity.’ ” Id. … Therefore the Eight Circuit in these cases did not address the issue of qualified immunity.

Aupperlee v. Coughlin

97 F. Supp. 2d 336 · District Court, E.D. New York · May 31, 2000

Layne, 526 U.S. 603 , 119 S.Ct. 1692, 1697 , 143 L.Ed.2d 818 (1999) (quotation omitted). “ ‘Clearly established’ for qualified immunity purposes means that the contours of the right must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable … Even where the plaintiffs rights and the scope of the officials’ permissible conduct are clearly established, the qualified immunity defense protects a governmental actor if it was “objectively reasonable” for the actor to

Brown v. City of Milwaukee

288 F. Supp. 2d 962 · District Court, E.D. Wisconsin · Oct 21, 2003

Qualified Immunity Defendants argue that even if Garcia violated plaintiffs Fourth Amendment rights, he is entitled to 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 not violate clearly established statutory

Stone v. Olderbak Georgetown/Willows LLC

District Court, D. Nebraska · Mar 1, 2024

The Order Is Not Clearly Erroneous Part of Defendant’s first objection and Defendant’s third objection assert that the Order is clearly erroneous. … Dillard’s, Inc., 643 F.3d 607, 613 (8th Cir. 2011) (explaining that the possibility of a different result does not establish that the result is clearly erroneous).

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

Lucero v. Bush

737 F. Supp. 2d 992 · District Court, D. South Dakota · Sep 1, 2010

Evaluating qualified immunity is an objective test: defendants are entitled to qualified immunity “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … Defendants’ qualified immunity defense must fail since reasonable police officers should or would have known the constitutional principles governing their conduct were clearly established and prohibited such action.

Nicholson v. Kent County Sheriff's Department

839 F. Supp. 508 · District Court, W.D. Michigan · Nov 29, 1993

raises a qualified immunity argument in a motion for summary judgment, the plaintiff must satisfy a two prong test: “First, the allegations must state a claim of violation of clearly established law. … However, the court concluded that the defendants were entitled to qualified immunity as to this use of the taser as well because its use did not violate clearly established law.

Hiller v. Ramsey

District Court, D. Kansas · Dec 3, 2020

The court further concluded that the officer’s use of excessive force violated clearly established law, so the officer was not entitled to qualified immunity. … Because no reasonable jury could conclude that Hiller met his burden to show that Ramsey’s conduct violated clearly established law, Ramsey is entitled to qualified immunity and summary judgment on Hiller’s claim.

Toliver v. New York City Department of Corrections

202 F. Supp. 3d 328 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jul 29, 2016

Mar. 27, 2006) (finding defendant who “clearly failed to request special interrogatories even after he had been invited to do so” by the Court waived qualified immunity defense). … It is true that “qualified immunity protects state officials from civil liability for actions performed in the course of their duties if their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights

O'Neil v. Texas Deparment of Criminal Justice

804 F. Supp. 2d 532 · District Court, N.D. Texas · Apr 7, 2011

A defense of qualified immunity “alters the usual summary judgment burden of proof ... … Deliberate indifference to an inmate’s serious medical needs violates a clearly established right under the Eighth Amendment. Estelle v.

Moreta-Ramirez v. Lemert

156 F. Supp. 2d 138 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Jul 18, 2001

Qualified Immunity Defendants invoke the doctrine of qualified immunity in support of their motion to dismiss. The defense of qualified immunity is available to federal officials acting in the scope of their employment. … Interpreting Harlow , the First Circuit has established a three-part inquiry to determine whether or not the doctrine of qualified immunity applies in a given situation.

Adewale v. Whalen

21 F. Supp. 2d 1006 · District Court, D. Minnesota · Aug 7, 1998

A government official performing discretionary functions is entitled to qualified immunity if his conduct does not violate “clearly established” constitutional or statutory rights of “which a reasonable person would have … cause is the clearly established standard for making an arrest.

Orange v. County of Grundy

950 F. Supp. 1365 · District Court, E.D. Tennessee · Apr 12, 1996

legal rules that were “clearly established” at the time it was taken. … that their conduct violated any of plaintiffs’ clearly established constitutional rights.

Burgos-Yantin v. Municipality of Juana Díaz

669 F. Supp. 2d 191 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Nov 6, 2009

The qualified immunity doctrine shields government officials performing “discretionary functions from ... civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … “[A] defendant who claims qualified immunity must do so either [1] on the theory that the asserted right is not clearly established or [2] on the theory that the conduct attributed to him satisfies the test of objective legal

Weicherding v. Riegel

981 F. Supp. 1143 · District Court, C.D. Illinois · Oct 30, 1997

Qualified immunity protects a state official’s discretionary actions so long as the official’s actions co not violate clearly established rights of which a reasonable person would have known. Id. … In the qualified immunity context, this Court must determine whether, at the time Plaintiff was discharged, it was clearly established that his interest outweighed the State’s interest. Gregorich, 54 F.3d at 416 .

Schulthies v. National Passenger Rr Corp.

650 F. Supp. 2d 994 · District Court, N.D. California · Aug 17, 2009

The defense of 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 … A court considering a claim of qualified immunity must determine whether the plaintiff has alleged the deprivation of an actual constitutional right and whether such right was clearly established such that it would be clear

Schulkers v. Kammer

367 F. Supp. 3d 626 · District Court, E.D. Kentucky · Feb 8, 2019

. ----, 137 S.Ct. 548 , 196 L.Ed.2d 463 (2017), the Court stated: Qualified immunity attaches when an official's conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … However, in Barber , the court addressed only the "clearly established" prong of the qualified immunity analysis and held that a child's Fourth Amendment right to avoid warrantless, in-school interviews conducted by social

Copper v. City of Fargo

905 F. Supp. 680 · District Court, D. North Dakota · Dec 30, 1994

“Qualified immunity protects a government official from suit if, at the time of the challenged acts, it was not clearly established that those actions would violate clearly established law of which a reasonable person would … The qualified immunity defense may still be viable even when the plaintiff establishes the violation of a clearly established constitutional right, if the defendant can demonstrate the “objective legal reasonableness” of