Case law

Stevens-Rucker v. City of Columbus

242 F. Supp. 3d 608 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Mar 16, 2017

Qualified Immunity It is well-established that “[p]o-lice officers are immune from civil liability unless, in the course of performing their discretionary functions, they violate the plaintiffs clearly established constitutional … Accordingly, Frenz is entitled to qualified immunity for his use of force against White because Plaintiff has failed to establish either prong of the two-part test.

Stamps v. Town of Framingham

38 F. Supp. 3d 146 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Dec 24, 2014

Stamps was objectively reasonable; and (3) Duncan is entitled to qualified immunity because a constitutional right to be free from unintentional shootings was not clearly established at the time of the incident. II. … For purposes of the second step of the qualified-immunity analysis, “[a] right is clearly established only if it would be clear to a reasonable officer that his conduct was unlawful in the situation he confronted.”

Burnham v. West

681 F. Supp. 1169 · District Court, E.D. Virginia · Jan 29, 1988

Here the Court, upon reconsideration, intentionally sweeps more broadly than in its earlier ruling on whether defendants violated "clearly established" constitutional rights. … If there are means to show that rights are clearly established other than by controlling precedent as required by Wallace v.

Massie v. Cobb County

255 F. Supp. 3d 1302 · District Court, N.D. Georgia · Jun 1, 2017

Accordingly, even if Gallimore’s conduct did violate Massie’s Fourth Amendment rights, that, violation did not run afoul of clearly established law, and Gallimore is entitled to qualified immunity. Smith v. … In' response, Massie argues in a cursory fashion that “the record in this case clearly establishes that ... Gallimore acted with actual malice.” [44] at 19. ...

Masters v. Gilmore

663 F. Supp. 2d 1027 · District Court, D. Colorado · Oct 5, 2009

The Law of Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity shields governmental officials performing discre *1042 tionary functions from liability for civil damages provided that their conduct does not violate clearly established constitutional … Masters cannot satisfy the second prong of qualified immunity analysis and show that the rights were clearly established at the time the violations occurred. Remarkably, Mr.

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

Johnson v. City of Detroit

944 F. Supp. 586 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Oct 30, 1996

Government officials performing discretionary functions are afforded qualified immunity shielding them from civil liability under section 1983 if “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … Accordingly, the officer defendants cannot claim qualified immunity for their conduct on April 11, 1994 on the grounds that the right asserted in Johnson’s complaint is not clearly established.

Chadwell v. Brewer

59 F. Supp. 3d 756 · District Court, W.D. Virginia · Oct 2, 2014

“Qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions from personal capacity liability for civil damages under § 1983, ‘insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … was “clearly established” when the violation occurred.

Reid v. Simmons

163 F. Supp. 2d 81 · District Court, D. New Hampshire · Mar 30, 2001

Qualified Immunity. … A government official is entitled to qualified immunity from personal liability if the challenged “ ‘conduct [did] not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have

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.”

Donahoe v. Arpaio

869 F. Supp. 2d 1020 · District Court, D. Arizona · Apr 9, 2012

. § 1983 , 11 qualified immunity protects a government official from suit where that official’s conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known … of free speech rights [is] violative” of clearly established law).

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.

Barron v. Public Health Trust of Dade County

22 F. Supp. 2d 1368 · District Court, S.D. Florida · Aug 21, 1998

Miller, 57 F.3d 986, 991-93 (11th Cir.1995) (reversing district court’s denial of qualified immunity to defendants on plaintiffs’ First Amendment claims because it was not clearly established that transferring employees, … entitled to 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.

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

Kent v. Katz

327 F. Supp. 2d 302 · District Court, D. Vermont · Jan 20, 2004

Under both federal and state law, a qualified immunity defense is established if (a) the defendant’s action did not violate clearly established law, or (b) it was objectively reasonable for the defendant to believe that his … In sum, Kent has not established that he is entitled to JMOL on either excessive force or qualified immunity. II.