Case law

Henderson v. City of Philadelphia

853 F. Supp. 2d 514 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 30, 2012

Qualified Immunity Defense counsel argues that Gress is entitled to qualified immunity. … Clearly, his actions were not objectively reasonable and were not done in good faith. Counsel has not provided any other reason why Gress would be entitled to qualified immunity.

Cockcroft v. Kirkland

548 F. Supp. 2d 767 · District Court, N.D. California · Mar 10, 2008

Qualified Immunity. … 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

McGregor v. Greer

748 F. Supp. 881 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 27, 1990

Therefore, in order to determine whether qualified immunity attaches, we must first determine whether plaintiff alleges violation of any clearly established rights. … Thus, the Court concludes that plaintiff did not have a “clearly established” right to privacy in the lobby of her apartment. Therefore, defendants are entitled to qualified immunity on this issue.

Fordyce v. City of Seattle

840 F. Supp. 784 · District Court, W.D. Washington · Jul 29, 1993

Qualified immunity is “an immunity from suit rather than a mere defense to liability” and “ordinarily should be decided by the court long before trial.” Hunter v. … The Ninth Circuit has recently held: When a law enforcement officer asserts qualified immunity from liability for Fourth Amendment violations, the district court must determine whether, in light of clearly established principles

Nahinu v. Naso

District Court, D. Hawaii · Mar 30, 2023

Police officers and other state actors may be entitled to qualified immunity. See District of Columbia v. Wesby, 138 S. … statutory or constitutional right, and (2) the unlawfulness of their conduct was “clearly established at the time.”).

Sears v. Bradley County Government

821 F. Supp. 2d 987 · District Court, E.D. Tennessee · Sep 26, 2011

Even if a government official deprives a plaintiff of a federal right, “qualified immunity will apply if an objective reasonable officer would not have understood, by referencing clearly established law, that his conduct … is entitled to qualified immunity.

Fabrikant v. French

328 F. Supp. 2d 303 · District Court, N.D. New York · Jul 30, 2004

The qualified immunity doctrine insulates a governmental official performing discretionary functions from liability so long as his “conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … were ‘clearly established’ at the time it was taken.”

MONTEILH v. County of Los Angeles

820 F. Supp. 2d 1081 · District Court, C.D. California · Jul 12, 2011

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity shields public officials sued in their individual capacity for monetary damages, unless their conduct violates “clearly established” law that a reasonable public officer would have known … “whether the right was clearly established.”

L.R. v. School District

60 F. Supp. 3d 584 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 20, 2014

doctrine of qualified immunity. … The qualified immunity analysis involves two steps: “(1) whether the plaintiff alleged sufficient facts to establish the violation of a constitutional right, and (2) whether the right was ‘clearly established’ at the time

Dingwell v. Cossette

327 F. Supp. 3d 462 · District Court, D. Connecticut · Jun 7, 2018

Qualified Immunity: Police Chief Cossette and Detective Williams Qualified immunity must be decided "at the earliest possible stage in litigation." Hunter v. … K-H Corp. , 968 F.2d 1489 , 1494 (2d Cir. 1992) ). *476 A defendant is entitled to qualified immunity when his conduct "does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person

French v. City of Casey

361 F. Supp. 3d 1011 · District Court, D. Colorado · Jan 9, 2019

"When a defendant asserts qualified immunity at summary judgment, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to show that: (1) the defendant violated a constitutional right and (2) the constitutional right was clearly established … But the absence of such an opinion does not preclude a finding that the law was clearly established and so the officer is not entitled to qualified immunity. Id. at 1285 .

Davis v. Billington

775 F. Supp. 2d 23 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 30, 2011

Qualified Immunity As noted previously in this Memorandum Opinion, the doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials from liability for civil damages when their conduct does not violate clearly established … Therefore, because the plaintiff alleges in his Complaint the violation of a clearly established constitutional right, defendant Mulhollan’s motion to dismiss on qualified immunity grounds must be denied. 2.

Bowman v. Alabama Department of Human Resources

857 F. Supp. 1524 · District Court, M.D. Alabama · Jun 20, 1994

An official is entitled to qualified immunity unless the conduct “violate[s] clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. … A plaintiff who seeks damages ... may overcome the defendant official’s qualified immunity only by showing that those [constitutional or statutory] rights were clearly established.” Elder v.

David v. Giurbino

488 F. Supp. 2d 1048 · District Court, S.D. California · Mar 16, 2007

“Clearly Established” Law The second prong of Saucier asks “whether the right was clearly established.” Saucier, 533 U.S. at 201, 121 S.Ct. 2151 . … Because Plaintiff has not shown the violation of a clearly established right under RLUIPA, Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity from Plaintiffs claims for damages.

Ross v. State of Ala.

893 F. Supp. 1545 · District Court, M.D. Alabama · Jul 7, 1995

Under the qualified immunity defense, the defendants are immune from liability if [the plaintiff’s] complaint fails to state a violation of a "clearly established statutory or constitutional right[] of which a reasonable … The purpose of qualified immunity is to shield government officials performing discretionary functions from civil trials and liability if their conduct does not violate " 'clearly established statutory or constitutional rights

LeFever v. Ferguson

956 F. Supp. 2d 819 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Jul 9, 2013

Raker’s qualified immunity defense. … clearly established as early as 1964.”

Thomas v. Murray

107 F. Supp. 2d 748 · District Court, N.D. Texas · May 31, 2000

Murray contends that he is entitled to qualified immunity because his actions did not violate clearly established federal law. … clearly established in June 1996.

Hofschneider v. City of Vancouver

182 F. Supp. 3d 1145 · District Court, W.D. Washington · Apr 21, 2016

Schaffer also argues that his search and seizure of Hofschneider was conducted reasonably, and that, even if it was not, he is entitled to qualified immunity because any right he did violate was not “clearly established.” … the “right at issue was ‘clearly established’ at the time of the defendant’s alleged misconduct.”

M.D. Ex Rel. Daniels v. Smith

504 F. Supp. 2d 1238 · District Court, M.D. Alabama · Aug 27, 2007

Clearly established In the Eleventh Circuit, “unless a controlling and factually similar case declares the official’s conduct unconstitutional, an excessive-force plaintiff can overcome qualified immunity only by showing … Under this test, the law is clearly established, and qualified immunity can be overcome, if the standards set forth in Graham and the Eleventh Circuit’s case law “inevitably lead every reasonable officer in [the defendant

Pearson v. City of Paris

839 F. Supp. 645 · District Court, W.D. Arkansas · Dec 2, 1993

Qualified Immunity- Defendant Ford’s final argument is that he is entitled to qualified immunity as a “government official performing discretionary functions.” … Once a court determines as a matter of law that a legal standard governing the governmental action at issue was clearly established, there' is no qualified immunity. Id.