Case law

Cook v. BD. OF COUNTY COM'RS OF CTY. OF WYANDOTTE

966 F. Supp. 1049 · District Court, D. Kansas · May 29, 1997

The Court also finds that Officer Drake is not entitled to qualified immunity. … Qualified immunity would shield Officer Drake from suit for damages if a reasonable officer could have believed that plaintiffs arrest was lawful in light of clearly established. law and information which Officer Drake possessed

Christman v. Kick

342 F. Supp. 2d 82 · District Court, D. Connecticut · Oct 28, 2004

More specifically, a police officer is entitled to qualified immunity from liability for his discretionary actions if either (1) his “conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … When considering a question of qualified immunity, however, a district court must determine whether, given the “specific context of the case,” the right was clearly established.

Akers v. Caperton

797 F. Supp. 514 · District Court, S.D. West Virginia · Jul 30, 1992

Qualified Immunity The Defendants Gaston Caperton, Kenneth Dunn and Art Gleason assert the defense of qualified immunity. … Defendants assert an entitlement to qualified immunity since they were acting pursuant to statutory authority and they further allege that their conduct did not violate the Plaintiffs’ clearly established statutory or constitutional

Madison v. Cruz

359 F. Supp. 3d 135 · District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 13, 2019

The First Circuit has adopted a two-part test to assess qualified immunity. … I find that had Defendant McDonald been aware that Plaintiff was outed as an informant and previously assaulted but declined to act to ensure Plaintiff's safety, it would qualify as a violation of Plaintiff's clearly established

Daker v. Ferrero

506 F. Supp. 2d 1295 · District Court, N.D. Georgia · Aug 24, 2007

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity provides “complete protection for government officials sued in their individual capacities if their conduct ‘does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of … As stated, in determining whether Defendants have qualified immunity, the Court determines (1) whether the plaintiffs allegations, if true, establish a constitutional violation, and (2) whether the right was “clearly established

McIntosh v. Weinberger

617 F. Supp. 107 · District Court, E.D. Missouri · May 24, 1984

from suit under the doctrine of qualified immunity. … Assuming arguendo, that the law was not clearly established at the time the results of the reconstruction panel were destroyed, defendant Turner’s defense of qualified immunity should be sustained.

Natal-Rosario v. Puerto Rico Police Department

609 F. Supp. 2d 194 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Apr 2, 2009

Qualified Immunity This Court will now discuss whether the doctrine of qualified immunity bars Plaintiffs’ claims against Caldero. 4 Qualified immunity protects public officials from the specter of damages liability for judgment … Therefore, this Court will deny the motion to dismiss on qualified immunity grounds. 4.

Perez v. School Board

917 F. Supp. 2d 1261 · District Court, S.D. Florida · Jan 17, 2013

Furthermore, because the Defendants have raised qualified immunity as a defense, Plaintiff must allege that the officers violated a clearly-established right. Williams, 102 F.3d at 1182 . … When qualified immunity is raised, Plaintiff must plead facts showing that, at the time of the beating the law clearly established that the force used by the officers was excessive.

Watkins v. Millennium School

290 F. Supp. 2d 890 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Nov 18, 2003

Qualified immunity extends to individuals performing discretionary functions, unless their actions violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Id. … In elaborating on “clearly established,” the Supreme Court stated in Anderson v.

Woodcock v. City of Bowling Green

165 F. Supp. 3d 563 · District Court, W.D. Kentucky · Feb 24, 2016

Clearly Established Right Defendants, in their Motion for Summary Judgment, assert that Casada is entitled to qualified immunity. … The Pollard court did not address the qualified immunity inquiry of whether the right allegedly violated was clearly established. .

Dohner v. Neff

240 F. Supp. 2d 692 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Dec 11, 2002

Qualified Immunity In Harlow v. … Qualified Immunity for Neff To find a clearly established constitutional right, a district court must find binding precedent from the Supreme Court, its court of appeals, or itself. Ohio Civil Serv. Employees Ass’n. v.

Moss v. Kopp

505 F. Supp. 2d 1120 · District Court, D. Utah · Feb 16, 2007

; and accordingly, (3) the court need not address qualified immunity. … Because both orders clearly fall under his statutory authority, he would qualify for judicial immunity. Consequently, Defendants satisfy the first step of the quasi-judicial immunity analysis. 2.

Kaufman v. Carter

952 F. Supp. 520 · District Court, W.D. Michigan · Dec 9, 1996

I conclude that defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity on the ground that it was not “clearly established” that the Rehabilitation Act and the ADA apply to prisons. … Qualified immunity is not available where an official violates “clearly established statutory ... rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v.

Whitfield v. Municipality of Fajardo

279 F. Supp. 2d 115 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Aug 19, 2003

Government officials are generally immune from suit when their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory authority or constitutional rights, which a reasonable person should have known of at the time of the conduct … Second, these rights were clearly established at the time of the alleged violation.

Stewart v. Beaufort County

481 F. Supp. 2d 483 · District Court, D. South Carolina · Feb 6, 2007

Is Deputy Calhoun Entitled to Qualified Immunity? … Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, law enforcement officers performing their discretionary duties “are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory

Pinson v. United States Department of Justice

246 F. Supp. 3d 211 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 30, 2017

Qualified Immunity The DOJ asserts, cursorily, that Dignam and Samuels are shielded from liability by qualified immunity.12 MTD at 8–9. … As discussed below, the Count concludes that Pinson had a clearly established right. The qualified immunity defense thus turns on whether there was a violation of that right.

Hilchey v. City of Haverhill

537 F. Supp. 2d 255 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Feb 1, 2008

Before asking the second question, however, the issue of qualified immunity must be addressed. D. Qualified Immunity 1. … Second, the Court must determine whether the right was “clearly established at the time of the alleged violation”. Abrew-Guzman, 241 F.3d at 73 .

Visser v. Magnarelli

542 F. Supp. 1331 · District Court, N.D. New York · Jul 9, 1982

Toledo, 446 U.S. 635, 640 , 100 S.Ct. 1920, 1924 , 64 L.Ed.2d 572 (1980), clearly requires a defendant to plead a defense of qualified immunity, as defendants-councilors have done here. … Treen, 671 F.2d 892, 899-900 (5th Cir. 1982) (violation of clearly established state law vitiates objective prong of good faith immunity defense).

Hedrick v. Roberts

183 F. Supp. 2d 814 · District Court, E.D. Virginia · Sep 27, 2001

Qualified Immunity State actors, such as prison officials performing discretionary functions, enjoy qualified immunity if their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … In determining whether a state actor is entitled to qualified immunity, a court “must (1) identify the right allegedly violated, (2) determine whether the constitutional right was clearly established at the time of the incident

Henderson v. Simms

54 F. Supp. 2d 499 · District Court, D. Maryland · May 14, 1999

In order to be entitled to qualified immunity, public officials must show that their actions, objectively viewed, did not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable official would … Mar.26, 1999), and, of course, since it predated the defendants’ conduct anyway, it certainly could not constitute “clearly established” law of which they should have known. See, e.g., Hodge v.