Case law

Brandon v. City of New York

705 F. Supp. 2d 261 · District Court, S.D. New York · Mar 30, 2010

Okst, 101 F.3d 845, 857 (2d Cir.1996) (“[P]ublic officials are entitled to qualified immunity if (1) their conduct does not violate clearly established constitutional rights, or (2) it was objectively reasonable for them … violated a clearly established right.”

Eaton v. Estabrook

District Court, D. Connecticut · Jan 26, 2023

By requiring the law to be clearly established to a particularized degree, qualified immunity “protects all but the plainly incompetent or those who knowingly violate the law.” … Relevant to the second question, “even where the law is ‘clearly established’ and the scope of an official’s permissible conduct is ‘clearly defined,’ the qualified immunity defense also protects an official if it was ‘

Butler v. City of Prairie Village

974 F. Supp. 1386 · District Court, D. Kansas · Aug 25, 1997

Qualified Immunity, i. Standard. Qualified immunity provides immunity from suit, not merely from liability. Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 526 , 105 S.Ct. 2806, 2815-16 , 86 L.Ed.2d 411 (1985). … “Ordinarily, in order for the law to be clearly established, there must be a Supreme Court or Tenth Circuit decision on point, or the clearly established weight of authority from other courts must have found the law to be

Roman v. Appleby

558 F. Supp. 449 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 22, 1983

Immunity Defendants’ defense of qualified or “good faith” immunity is much more persuasive. The immunity concept is based upon the need to ensure principled and conscientious governmental decision-making. Crowder v. … established law, thereby entitling her to the defense of qualified immunity, I also find that defense of immunity is supported by the provisions of the Child Protective Services Law (CPSL) of 1975, 11 P.S. § 2201, et seq

Alburquerque v. Faz Alzamora

357 F. Supp. 2d 385 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Dec 9, 2004

Defendants additionally claim they are entitled to qualified immunity because their conduct did not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights a reasonable person would have known. … of which the plaintiff complains violated clearly established law.”

Davis v. Carroll

390 F. Supp. 2d 415 · District Court, D. Delaware · Sep 27, 2005

Whether Defendants are shielded from liability under the doctrine of qualified immunity A public official is entitled to qualified immunity if the official’s “conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … If not, the inquiry ends, and the officer is entitled to qualified immunity. Id.

Veneklase v. City of Fargo

904 F. Supp. 1038 · District Court, D. North Dakota · Feb 17, 1995

“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 a plaintiff establishes the violation of a clearly established constitutional right, if the defendant can demonstrate the “objective legal reasonableness” of the

Figueroa v. Gates

207 F. Supp. 2d 1085 · District Court, C.D. California · Jun 11, 2002

basis of qualified immunity. … On the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis, “whether the right was clearly established,” Katz, 533 U.S. at 201, 121 S.Ct. 2151 , the Court asks whether “ ‘the contours of the right [were] sufficiently clear that

Zann v. Whidby

904 F. Supp. 2d 1229 · District Court, N.D. Alabama · Oct 24, 2012

To avoid summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity, the plaintiff must show that “(1) the defendant violated a constitutional right, and (2) this right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation … Was the Right Clearly Established?

MacLean v. Secor

876 F. Supp. 695 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 14, 1995

established at the time of his confinement, defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. … Defendants, however, are entitled to qualified immunity on this claim because, at the time plaintiff was detained, this liberty interest was not a “clearly established” right.

Isaacs v. Trustees of Dartmouth College, et al.

2018 DNH 096 · District Court, D. New Hampshire · May 15, 2018

“Qualified immunity is a doctrine that shelters government officials from civil damages liability ‘insofar as their conduct 21 does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … Cahill is entitled to qualified immunity. In Foster v.

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.

Jones v. Pandey

390 F. Supp. 2d 1371 · District Court, M.D. Georgia · Jul 14, 2005

On the other hand, if a violation could be made out on a favorable view of the parties’ submissions, the next sequential step is to ask whether the right was “clearly established” because qualified immunity inquiries have … In the Eleventh Circuit, for a right to be “clearly established” for purposes of qualified immunity, “the law must have earlier been developed in such a concrete *1377 and factually defined context to make it obvious to all

Wagner v. County of Cattaraugus

866 F. Supp. 709 · District Court, W.D. New York · Oct 19, 1994

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY I also find that defendant Travis is not protected by qualified immunity. … Therefore, the first part of the qualified immunity consideration, that is, whether the police conduct here violated clearly established constitutional rights is not an issue in this case.

Jackson v. Curry Cnty.

343 F. Supp. 3d 1103 · District Court, D. New Mexico · Nov 1, 2018

violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known." … Qualified Immunity As noted above, Curry County Defendants move for summary judgment based on qualified immunity.

Roes ex rel. Bazerman v. Florida Department of Children & Family Services

176 F. Supp. 2d 1310 · District Court, S.D. Florida · Sep 24, 2001

of qualified immunity. … Simply put, “If the law did not put the officer on notice that his conduct would be clearly unlawful, summary judgment based on qualified immunity is appropriate.”

Jones v. Banks

892 F. Supp. 988 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · May 24, 1995

Qualified Immunity Banks’ second argument, that he is entitled to summary judgment on grounds of qualified immunity, is equally unavailing. … Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, “government officials performing discretionary functions ... are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory

Bala v. Stenehjem

671 F. Supp. 2d 1067 · District Court, D. North Dakota · Nov 30, 2009

Qualified immunity protects government officials from civil lawsuits unless “ ‘their conduct violates a clearly established constitutional or statutory right of which a reasonable person would have known.’” Anderson v. … was clearly established at the time of the deprivation.” 2 Howard v.

A.B. ex rel. B.S. v. Adams-Arapahoe 28J School District

831 F. Supp. 2d 1226 · District Court, D. Colorado · Nov 28, 2011

Was the constitutional violation clearly established? Rice has asserted qualified immunity as a defense to these claims. Thus, she is liable only if her actions violated a clearly established constitutional right. … Burke also asserts qualified immunity. Therefore, she is liable for these constitutional violations only if they were clearly established at the time they were committed.

Dixon v. Bishop

District Court, D. Maryland · Mar 11, 2020

However, even if the alleged sexual harassment arguably could reach such a level, the Correctional Defendants would 11 be entitled to qualified immunity, because there is no clearly … Ct. 577, 589 (2018) (stating that “officers are entitled to qualified immunity under § 1983 unless (1) they violated a federal statutory or constitutional right, and (2) the unlawfulness of their conduct was ‘clearly established