Case law

Marten v. Swain

242 F. Supp. 3d 744 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Mar 16, 2017

right, and the designated evidence does not show a violation of any clearly established constitutional right. … As additional bases to defeat qualified immunity, the Martens also assert that Swain violated their clearly established constitutional rights by providing false testimony during the proceedings to further the criminal cases

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

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.

Cooper v. Whatcom County

District Court, W.D. Washington · Jan 11, 2023

Because of the 2 particularized nature of the qualified immunity analysis, Plaintiffs must establish that “the 3 violative nature of particular conduct is clearly established” for each of the individual Whatcom 4 Deputies … Jefferson fails to establish the objective deliberate indifference standard as a matter of law, 6 so each one is therefore entitled to qualified immunity. Dkt. No. 134 at 14–17.

Washpon v. Parr

561 F. Supp. 2d 394 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jun 4, 2008

unreasonable in light of clearly established law. … If it was not reasonable, then for purposes of determining qualified immunity we next ask the purely legal question of whether the law was sufficiently established that a reasonable officer would know his conduct was unlawful

Williams v. Lopes

64 F. Supp. 2d 37 · District Court, D. Connecticut · Aug 16, 1999

Assuming this case involves clearly established rights, the entitlement to qualified immunity generally turns on the particular facts of a case. Robison v. Via, 821 F.2d *42 913, 921 (2d Cir.1987). … The evidence before the Court clearly establishes that plaintiff cannot recall the events with any accuracy.

Marley v. Crawford County, Arkansas

383 F. Supp. 2d 1129 · District Court, W.D. Arkansas · Jul 12, 2005

Qualified immunity shields defendants “[f]rom liability for civil damages *1132 insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known … Katz, 533 U.S. 194 , 204-07, 121 S.Ct. 2151 , 150 L.Ed.2d 272 (2001) (qualified immunity does not shield conduct which violates clearly established rights; inquiry in determining whether a right is clearly established is

M.M.T. v. United States

337 F. Supp. 3d 1099 · District Court, W.D. Washington · Aug 30, 2018

The Court will only address the qualified immunity issue because the Government and Taitano are obviously entitled qualified immunity and it is unnecessary to engage in a detailed, multi-factor analysis to determine whether … Therefore, Taitano is entitled to qualified immunity. See , e.g. , United States v.

Stokes v. City of Chicago

744 F. Supp. 183 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Aug 24, 1990

The standard for granting qualified immunity is well-established. … It is clearly established that the fourth amendment requires truthful factual showing sufficient to constitute probable cause. Franks v.

Vega, Alfredo v. Anderson

District Court, W.D. Wisconsin · Sep 24, 2020

Summary judgment to defendants would be required under the doctrine of qualified immunity. See D.C. v. Wesby, 138 S. … Ct. 577, 589 (2018) (Government officials entitled to qualified immunity from personal liability in lawsuit unless conduct violated federal statutory or constitutional right and unlawfulness of conduct was “clearly established

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 .

Connor v. Halifax Hospital Medical Center

135 F. Supp. 2d 1198 · District Court, M.D. Florida · Mar 5, 2001

This is particularly true in cases involving qualified immunity, where the court must determine whether a defendant’s actions violated a clearly established right. GJR Investments, 132 F.3d at 1367 . … rules that were “clearly established” at the *1217 time it was taken.

Shultz v. Sundberg

577 F. Supp. 1491 · District Court, D. Alaska · Jan 13, 1984

Defendants Sundberg, Vaden, Mix, Sheffield, Gorsuch and Hickey’s Motion for Summary Judgment — Qualified Immunity. … Under the test for official immunity, as modified by Harlow , on a motion such as this for summary judgment, the court may determine, “not only the currently applicable law, but whether that law was clearly established at

Fils v. City of Aventura

768 F. Supp. 2d 1188 · District Court, S.D. Florida · Aug 23, 2010

If he did, qualified immunity applies. … Thus, absent clearly established precedent condemning a factually similar type of arrest, a police officer can generally still claim qualified immunity based on arguable probable cause.

Smith v. State of Ala.

996 F. Supp. 1203 · District Court, M.D. Alabama · Feb 27, 1998

Where the law that the defendant allegedly violated was not clearly established at the time of the alleged offense, the defendant is entitled to qualified immunity. … The court will first determine if Smith’s rights under the equal protection clause were clearly established for purposes of qualified immunity.

Golthy v. Alabama

287 F. Supp. 2d 1259 · District Court, M.D. Alabama · Oct 17, 2003

First, the words of a federal statute or constitutional provision may be specific enough “to establish clearly the law applicable to particular conduct and circumstances and to overcome qualified immunity, even in the total … If the circumstances facing the official are “materially similar” to those of the fact-specific case, this precedent can clearly establish the applicable law and qualified immunity will not be warranted. Id. at 1352 .

Wagner v. Genesee County Board of Commissioners

607 F. Supp. 1158 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Apr 23, 1985

However, the Supreme Court has concluded that an immunity that was “well established at common law at the time § 1983 was enacted and ... … here just because these officers’ immunity is absolute rather than qualified.

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.”).

Avilés v. Figueroa

195 F. Supp. 3d 435 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Jul 16, 2016

Qualified Immunity Lastly, this Court how moves to consider whether Co-Defendant Martinez-Ortiz is protected by qualified immunity. The qualified immunity doctrine offers public officials complete immunity from suit. … In order to *449 grant qualified immunity, the First Circuit has clearly laid out a two-step process in which the court must engage: The two-step procedure for assessing a plea of qualified immunity at the motion to dismiss

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