Case law

McKinney v. Huntsville Sch. Dist.

345 F. Supp. 3d 1071 · District Court, S.D. New York · Oct 12, 2018

Counts IV and VI: Qualified Immunity Certain government officials who are performing "discretionary functions" are immune from civil action as long as their conduct does not "violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … Courts analyze two elements to determine whether qualified immunity applies: (1) whether the official violated plaintiff's constitutional rights; and (2) whether those rights were clearly established. Saucier v.

Vassallo Ex Rel. K v. v. Lando

591 F. Supp. 2d 172 · District Court, E.D. New York · Oct 31, 2008

Legal Standard “Qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … The Second Circuit has held that under the doctrine of qualified immunity, “a right is clearly established if (1) the law is defined with reasonable clarity, (2) the Supreme Court or the Second Circuit has recognized the

Kinkus v. Village of Yorkville

476 F. Supp. 2d 829 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Mar 13, 2007

Next, the Court must determine whether Plaintiffs rights under the First and Four Amendments are “clearly established” in this case for purposes of qualified immunity. … Rather than directing his argument to the second step of the qualified immunity analysis, the “clearly established” prong, Officer Popp focuses all of his arguments on the first prong. None of these arguments is novel.

Fraser v. Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority

District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jun 16, 2021

Qualified immunity protects public employees “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 … Under that standard, they are clearly protected by qualified immunity.

Jones v. Perry County Fiscal Court

185 F. Supp. 3d 947 · District Court, E.D. Kentucky · May 11, 2016

Qualified Immunity for Judge Alexander “The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … [Record No. 40-1, p. 13] Further, he contends that Jones’ right to associate with his uncle is not clearly established.

Gaubert v. Gray

747 F. Supp. 40 · District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 27, 1990

Violations of “Clearly Established” Rights In Harlow , the Supreme Court held that to overcome an assertion of qualified immunity the constitutional rights alleged by plaintiff to have been violated must have been “clearly … action is a violation) violates a clearly established right.”

Nichols v. City of Jackson

848 F. Supp. 718 · District Court, S.D. Mississippi · Mar 31, 1994

Qualified Immunity Defendants next assert that Chief Donovan and Assistant Chief Graham are entitled to qualified immunity. … Qualified immunity shields government officials from civil damages liability if their conduct does not violate clearly established law of which a reasonable person should have been aware. Harlow v.

Singleton v. Doe

210 F. Supp. 3d 359 · District Court, E.D. New York · Sep 28, 2016

Defendants also argue that, irrespective of Plaintiffs liberty interest, they are entitled to qualified immunity because they acted reasonably and not in violation of a clearly established right. (Id. at 8.) … Qualified immunity Qualified immunity protects public officials from liability for civil damages “unless the official violated a statutory or constitutional right that was clearly established at the time of the challenged

Hendon v. City of Piedmont

163 F. Supp. 2d 1316 · District Court, N.D. Alabama · Sep 11, 2001

.-, 121 S.Ct. 2151 (2001), where the Supreme Court held that qualified immunity should be granted on the excessive force claim in that case because the plaintiff had not “identified any case demonstrating a clearly established … The panel found that the police officer was entitled to qualified immunity because it was not clearly established that the amount of force he used was unlawful.

Evans v. Bayer

684 F. Supp. 2d 1365 · District Court, S.D. Florida · Feb 12, 2010

To overcome qualified immunity, the plaintiff must show (1) that the defendant violated a constitutional right, and (2) that this right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation. Id. (citing Wilson v. … Clearly Established “It is ... appropriate for a district court to grant the defense of qualified immunity at the motion to dismiss stage if the complaint ‘fails to allege the violation of a clearly established constitutional

Matusick v. Erie County Water Authority

774 F. Supp. 2d 514 · District Court, W.D. New York · Mar 1, 2011

Defendants’ argument for qualified immunity as a matter of law was that the First Amendment right to intimate association was not clearly established for dating, as opposed to married, relationships when their alleged acts … Defendants’ argument for qualified immunity is the most difficult one to understand, because they never identified what they were doing that required qualified immunity for racial slurs.

Walker v. Prieto

414 F. Supp. 2d 1148 · District Court, S.D. Florida · Feb 3, 2006

Qualified immunity offers complete protection for government officials sued in their individual capacities if their conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … “If no constitutional right would have been violated were the allegations established, there is no necessity for further inquiries concerning qualified immunity.”

Gaztambide v. Gaztambide

794 F. Supp. 451 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · May 20, 1992

Kaiter specifically held that: the issue of immunity must be subject to one interlocutory appeal in order to establish the defendant’s right to avoid trial altogether. … the issue of qualified immunity.

Amnesty International, USA v. Battle

484 F. Supp. 2d 1279 · District Court, S.D. Florida · Apr 24, 2007

Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, government officials performing discretionary functions are immune not just from liability, but from suit, unless the conduct which is the basis for suit violates “clearly established … The purported right Amnesty seeks to invoke in order to pierce Defendants’ qualified immunity here is not as clearly established as the rights invoked by the arrested protestors in Jones .

Carroll v. Lancaster Cnty.

301 F. Supp. 3d 486 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 14, 2018

The Court went on to explain that neither Colburn I nor Colburn II clearly established such a right. Id. at 2045 . … Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions from liability for civil *513 damages unless their conduct violates clearly established statutory or constitutional rights

Holloway v. Brechtse

279 F. Supp. 2d 613 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 18, 2003

Qualified Immunity Finally, Defendant argues Plaintiffs complaint should be dismissed because Defendant is entitled to qualified immunity. … The standard for qualified immunity is an objective one that asks whether a reasonable public official would know that his specific conduct violated clearly established rights. Grant v.

LoSacco v. City of Middletown

822 F. Supp. 870 · District Court, D. Connecticut · Feb 22, 1993

First, the motion seeks summary judgment on the issue of qualified immunity. … In this case, the defendants have raised the defense of qualified immunity.

Bolbol v. City of Daly City

754 F. Supp. 2d 1095 · District Court, N.D. California · Nov 17, 2010

right was clearly established. 1. … to qualified immunity.

Flynn v. Burns

289 F. Supp. 3d 948 · District Court, E.D. Wisconsin · Jan 29, 2018

do not violate clearly established constitutional or statutory rights. … Once a defendant asserts a qualified immunity defense, the plaintiff has the burden to establish that the defendant's action violated a clearly established right. Estate of Escobedo v.

Arrington v. Dickerson

915 F. Supp. 1516 · District Court, M.D. Alabama · Jan 31, 1996

The court also reserved ruling on the qualified immunity issue. … Instead, the question in this case, as in all qualified immunity cases, is fact specific: in May 1991, was it clearly established in this circuit that it was unconstitutional for a mental institution to fail to supervise