Case law

Pennycuff v. McNutt

95 F. Supp. 3d 1325 · District Court, W.D. Oklahoma · Mar 5, 2015

Qualified Immunity Defendants assert that plaintiffs 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim should be dismissed because they are entitled to qualified immunity. … “When a defendant pleads qualified immunity, the plaintiff has the heavy burden of establishing: (1) that the defendant’s actions violated a federal constitutional or statutory right; and (2) that the right violated was clearly

Lewis v. McCracken

782 F. Supp. 2d 702 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Mar 21, 2011

Qualified Immunity We turn next to the issue of qualified immunity protections, if any, available to Chief McCracken. … Qualified immunity shields McCracken from individual liability under Section 1983 for actions taken by him in the course of his performance of his discretionary functions, unless his conduct violated clearly established statutory

Estate of Gilliam Ex Rel. Waldroup v. City of Prattville

667 F. Supp. 2d 1276 · District Court, M.D. Alabama · Oct 26, 2009

Therefore, if the violated right was not clearly established under contemporary law, qualified immunity still applies. Id. at 201, 121 S.Ct. 2151 . *1288 2. … A constitutional right is clearly established for qualified-immunity purposes in one of three ways: (1) case law with indistinguishable facts that clearly establishes the right; (2) a broad statement of principle in the Constitution

Ellison v. Hobbs

334 F. Supp. 3d 1328 · District Court, N.D. Georgia · Sep 25, 2018

"In evaluating a government actor's entitlement to qualified immunity, the Supreme Court has developed an objective-reasonableness test wherein 'the official's actions must be evaluated against "clearly established law," … Second, we determine whether that right was clearly established at the time of alleged conduct.

Soto v. Bushmaster Firearms International, LLC

139 F. Supp. 3d 560 · District Court, D. Connecticut · Oct 9, 2015

The record establishes that the immunity provided by this statute will also be asserted with regard to the claims against the other defendants. 5 The “no possibility” standard used to assess claims of fraudulent joinder aims … In contending that the plaintiffs’ claims against Riverview are clearly baseless in light of the immunity provided by the PLCAA, defendants -ask this Court to determine that the -word “use” in the negligent entrustment exception

Costello v. City of Burlington

708 F. Supp. 2d 438 · District Court, D. Vermont · Mar 26, 2010

Qualified immunity shields government officials, including law enforcement officers, “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … Thus, a rule disallowing application of Burlington’s City Ordinance to the facts of this case would not be “clearly established,” and Sergeant Lewis would be entitled to qualified immunity even assuming a constitutional violation

Veritext Corp. v. Bonin

259 F. Supp. 3d 484 · District Court, E.D. Louisiana · Apr 10, 2017

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY The Defendants raise the same arguments for their damages claim that they do,:-,for the .state action immunity claim. … Furthermore, qualified immunity is an affirmative defense and the Board Members must both plead and establish their entitlement to that defense. Gomez v.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. HP Pelzer Automotive Systems, Inc. (TV2)

District Court, E.D. Tennessee · Mar 2, 2020

and defendant affidavits represented “nothing more than conflicting witness testimony”); Wayne, 36 F.3d at 530 (upholding district court’s denial of attorney fees where defendants won summary judgment on the basis of qualified … immunity, but plaintiffs also sued for injunctive relief, which was not barred by immunity); Beard v.

Glaspie v. Mahoney

973 F. Supp. 401 · District Court, S.D. New York · Aug 20, 1997

from constitutional tort liability; and that defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. 10 See Defts.’ … DISCUSSION Qualified Immunity The Supreme Court has clearly defined those situations where government officials enjoy qualified immunity in performing discretionary functions: [T]he[se] defendants enjoy a qualified immunity

Ministerio Roca Solida v. United States Department of Fish & Wildlife

288 F.R.D. 500 · District Court, D. Nevada · Jan 14, 2013

, and qualified immunity for McKelvey,” which plaintiff “essentially ignores.” (# 18). … not violate clearly established rights of which a reasonable person would know.” (# 17)(citing Harlow v.

Schwartz v. Gwinnett County

924 F. Supp. 2d 1362 · District Court, N.D. Georgia · Feb 15, 2013

A Qualified immunity of the 911 Defendants and Brown Qualified immunity protects government officials who perform discretionary functions from suits in their individual capacities, unless their conduct violates “clearly established … state actor as violating a clearly established constitutional right. 13 To the extent the, 911 Defendants and Brown have been sued in their individual capacities, they are entitled to qualified immunity for the Section 1983

Hurst v. Finley

857 F. Supp. 1517 · District Court, M.D. Alabama · Jun 14, 1994

In other words, the question in determining if an individual defendant is entitled to qualified immunity is whether the defendant could have believed his conduct was lawful in light of clearly established law and considering … Hayes, 957 F.2d 845, 848 (11th Cir.1992) (holding that an officer is entitled to qualified immunity insofar as conduct does not violate clearly established rights of which a reasonable officer would have known); see also

Knight v. Pugh

801 F. Supp. 2d 1235 · District Court, M.D. Alabama · Aug 10, 2011

Qualified immunity protects police officers acting within their discretionary authority from civil liability in § 1983 actions so long as their conduct does not violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights … Where, as here, qualified immunity is raised in a motion to dismiss, this Court must “look to the pleadings to see if the plaintiff has successfully alleged the violation of a clearly established right.” *1240 O’Rourke, 378

Ward v. Murphy

330 F. Supp. 2d 83 · District Court, D. Connecticut · Aug 16, 2004

More specifically, qualified immunity provides “substantial protection for caseworkers,” provided “it was objectively reasonable for them to believe that their acts” would not violate clearly established rights. … Even if the court were to assume a constitutional violation, the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity because the specific rights alleged by the plaintiff are not clearly established. See, e.g., Tenenbaum v.

Cotton v. Mansour

634 F. Supp. 1094 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Apr 11, 1986

To overcome the defense of qualified immunity it must appear that the defendant official violated clearly established constitutional or statutory rights of which a reasonable person would have known. ... … The Harlow test for qualified immunity applies to suits against state officials under § 1983. Id. at 818 n. 30, 102 S.Ct. at 2738 n. 30.

Riverdale Mills Corp. v. United States

337 F. Supp. 2d 247 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Mar 16, 2004

In evaluating a claim for qualified immunity, a court must determine: 1) whether the plaintiffs allegations, if true, establish a constitutional violation, 2) whether the right was clearly established at the time of the alleged … The answer to each inquiry must be affirmative to overcome a defense of qualified immunity. Id. The Court is underwhelmed by defendants’ arguments that they are entitled to qualified immunity.

Cobb v. Marshall

481 F. Supp. 2d 1248 · District Court, M.D. Alabama · Mar 14, 2007

City of Birmingham, the Eleventh Circuit held that in cases where qualified immunity is implicated, “some factual detail is necessary, especially if [the court is] to be able to see that the allegedly violated right was clearly … Qualified Immunity Defendant invokes qualified immunity as a defense to Plaintiffs § 1983 equal protection claim against him in his *1259 individual capacity. (Doc. No. 5 at 15-16.)

Harris v. Roderick

933 F. Supp. 977 · District Court, D. Idaho · May 28, 1996

Qualified immunity protects law enforcement officials from liability for civil damages unless their conduct violates “clearly established rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. … Even if the Court cannot find as a matter of law that the shot was reasonable, Defendants assert, the Court can find that the law on excessive force was not clearly established and that Horiuchi has qualified immunity.

Webb v. Greene County Sheriff's Office

494 F. Supp. 2d 779 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Jul 6, 2007

Even where an officer has violated a plaintiffs constitutional rights, that officer is entitled to qualified immunity if the right that he violated was not “clearly established” at the time of the violation. … As the right that Keller is accused of violating was clearly established at the time of the *795 arrest, he is not entitled to qualified immunity. 4.

Little v. Smith

114 F. Supp. 2d 437 · District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Aug 17, 2000

Government officials performing discretionary functions are entitled to qualified immunity from liability for civil damages to the extent that “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … [Qualified immunity is an immunity from suit, and not merely a defense to liability....