Case law

Jones v. Chandrasuwan

76 F. Supp. 3d 603 · District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Dec 30, 2014

When subject to suit under § 1983, state and local officials may assert qualified immunity to shield them from liability for civil damages, “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … Finding that this right is not clearly established, this court determines that Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity, even if there was some sort of constitutional violation.

Maldonado v. Rodriguez

322 F. Supp. 3d 753 · District Court, S.D. Texas · May 15, 2017

immunity. … Qualified Immunity from Individual Capacity Claims a.

Whittington v. Town of Surfside

490 F. Supp. 2d 1239 · District Court, S.D. Florida · Jun 6, 2007

Qualified Immunity “Qualified immunity offers complete protection for government officials sued in their individual capacities if their conduct ‘does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … As stated above, “[qualified immunity offers complete protection for government officials sued in their individual capacities if their conduct ‘does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which

Toth v. City of Dothan, Ala.

953 F. Supp. 1502 · District Court, M.D. Alabama · Dec 6, 1996

Both Hadden and Ingram claim they are immune from suit under the well-established doctrine of qualified immunity. … Thus, in following the framework established in Siegert , the court must first establish whether the plaintiff has asserted a constitutional violation before delving into the qualified immunity analysis. See Tinney v.

Parsons v. Ann Arbor, City of

District Court, E.D. Michigan · Mar 2, 2021

Qualified immunity "'shield[s]' public officials from money-damages liability if 'their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.'" … "To survive the motion to dismiss on qualified-immunity grounds, [P]laintiff must allege facts that plausibly mak[e] out a claim that the defendant's conduct violated a constitutional right that was clearly established

MLADEK v. Day

320 F. Supp. 2d 1373 · District Court, M.D. Georgia · Jun 7, 2004

Defendant Day is immune from suit in his individual capacity, unless he violated “ ‘clearly established law,’ which consists of statutory or constitutional rights that a reasonable person should have known.” Hutton v. … Mladek did not violate any clearly established constitutional right.

Bapat v. Connecticut Department of Health Services

815 F. Supp. 525 · District Court, D. Connecticut · Dec 29, 1992

Even where the contours of the plaintiffs federal rights are clearly established at the time of the defendant’s acts, “the defendant may enjoy qualified immunity if it was objectively reasonable for him to believe that his … immunity is whether the right alleged to have been violated was “clearly established.”

Ortega v. Moran

District Court, D. Connecticut · Nov 21, 2022

Moran further asserts a defense of qualified immunity. … In order for a plaintiff to overcome a defense of qualified immunity, a plaintiff must show that the defendant violated a right of the plaintiff that was clearly established law at the time of the conduct in question.

Torres v. Grunkmeyer

601 F. Supp. 1043 · District Court, D. Wyoming · Feb 1, 1985

The Court would further note that if such actions were entitled to legislative immunity, legislators and their staffs would be free to violate clearly established rights and privileges with impunity, something the Speech … Plaintiff seeks a directed verdict on the qualified immunity question.

Vacca v. Barletta

753 F. Supp. 400 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Dec 12, 1990

Qualified Immunity Government officials who are not granted absolute immunity are entitled to qualified immunity from suit. … law, but whether that law was clearly established at the time an action occurred....

Slough v. Telb

644 F. Supp. 2d 978 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Aug 14, 2009

Qualified immunity protects public officials from suit for civil damages so long as their- conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … No clearly established constitutional right was violated by Defendants entry into Plaintiffs home. Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity in entering Plaintiffs home. b.

Munn-Goins v. Board of Trustees of Bladen Community College

658 F. Supp. 2d 713 · District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Sep 17, 2009

Page contend that qualified immunity bars plaintiffs section 1983 claim for money damages. … , 119 S.Ct. 1692 . *725 In most cases, the qualified immunity analysis does not require factual findings, because the inquiry is a “purely legal one: whether the facts alleged ... support a claim of violation of clearly

Hansen v. California Department of Corrections

920 F. Supp. 1480 · District Court, N.D. California · Mar 25, 1996

If, rationally, what the state of the law was is a close question, the law cannot be deemed “clearly established” for purposes of qualified immunity. … California Statutory Immunity California has no qualified immunity law similar to federal qualified immunity.

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.

Estate of Simpson v. Yellowstone County

229 F. Supp. 3d 1192 · District Court, D. Montana · Jan 24, 2017

Qualified immunity protects government officials from civil liability so long as the officers’ conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known … Clearly Established Right Because a constitutional violation has been found, the next step in the qualified immunity analysis is to ask “whether the right was clearly established ... in light of the specific context of the

Nassau County Employee "L" v. County of Nassau

345 F. Supp. 2d 293 · District Court, E.D. New York · Nov 29, 2004

“The *301 qualified immunity doctrine shields ‘government officials performing discretionary functions ... from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … “In determining whether a particular legal principle was ‘clearly established’ for purposes of qualified immunity,” the Second Circuit has considered three factors: “whether the right was defined with reasonable specificity

Alvarado v. City of New York

482 F. Supp. 2d 341 · District Court, S.D. New York · Apr 26, 2007

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY AND ALVARADO’S UNLAWFUL SEARCH CLAIM Alvarado argues that the Court should not have dismissed his unlawful search claim on qualified immunity grounds as a material factual dispute remained regarding the … Only Supreme Court and Second Circuit precedent existing at the time of the alleged violation is relevant in deciding whether a right is clearly established.”).

Walton v. Ballard

District Court, S.D. West Virginia · Mar 30, 2018

established federal law.” … Johnson, 647 F.3d 87, 103 (4th Cir. 2011) (“The rule and analytical framework announced by the Supreme Court in Strickland ‘unquestionably qualifies as “clearly established” federal law under § 2254(d).’”

McNamara v. City of Long Beach

249 F. Supp. 3d 684 · District Court, E.D. New York · Apr 21, 2017

“Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … These facts inform whether defendants violated a clearly established right of the plaintiffs. As a result, the Court cannot dismiss plaintiffs claims at this stage based on qualified immunity.

Wetmore v. Gardner

735 F. Supp. 974 · District Court, E.D. Washington · Apr 6, 1990

Qualified Immunity The defendants next contend that they are entitled to a verdict in their favor or a new trial based on the doctrine of qualified immunity. … . *983 Because it was clearly established law that the policy could be found constitutional only by a showing of legitimate penological need, the policymaker defendants were entitled to qualified immunity only if it was shown