Case law

Johnson v. Wright

423 F. Supp. 2d 1242 · District Court, M.D. Alabama · Oct 17, 2005

Case law need not arise out of factually identical situations to clearly establish law for purposes of the qualified immunity analysis. Id. at 1351 . … Indeed, the Eleventh Circuit has repeatedly held that this legal tenant is “clearly established” for purposes of addressing qualified immunity claims by public officials. See, e.g., Id.; Herren v.

Ostling v. City of Bainbridge Island

872 F. Supp. 2d 1117 · District Court, W.D. Washington · May 24, 2012

But qualified immunity provides a higher standard: the right must be “clearly established” at the time of the incident. The right to be free from the use of excessive force is, of course, clearly established. … And for similar reasons, the Court must deny qualified immunity. The right to medical aid in these circumstances is “clearly established,” see City of Revere v.

Hartwell v. City of Montgomery, AL

487 F. Supp. 2d 1313 · District Court, M.D. Alabama · May 10, 2007

Under the qualified-immunity rule, “government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or … to qualified immunity.

Shaw v. District of Columbia

944 F. Supp. 2d 43 · District Court, District of Columbia · May 13, 2013

The USMS defendants claim they are entitled to qualified immunity because none of the searches violated a clearly established constitutional right.25 (USMS Mem. at 15.) … Conboy, Kates and Quicksey all argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity because none of these actions violated a clearly established constitutional right.

Moon v. Brown

939 F. Supp. 2d 1329 · District Court, M.D. Georgia · Mar 29, 2013

“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 a reasonable person … This law was clearly established by the Supreme Court well before the October 10, 2010 seizure. 56 Therefore, Mayor Brown had “fair warning,” and is not entitled to qualified immunity with respect to Plaintiffs’ Fourth Amendment

Apffel v. Huddleston

50 F. Supp. 2d 1129 · District Court, D. Utah · May 27, 1999

Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. … “Qualified immunity spares Defendants the burden of proceeding with the litigation unless Plaintiff can show that Defendants violated ‘clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would

ESTATE OF GAITHER EX REL. GAITHER v. District of Columbia

655 F. Supp. 2d 69 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 8, 2009

Legal Standard for Qualified Immunity “The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as then-conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … the officer’s conduct clearly violated established law.”

Washington v. St. Albans Police Department

30 F. Supp. 2d 455 · District Court, D. Vermont · Oct 27, 1998

Alternatively, Defendants also raise the defense of qualified immunity. … A defense of qualified immunity is established if “(a) the defendants’ action did not violate clearly established law, or (b) it was objectively reasonable for the defendant to believe that his action did not violate such

Hepting v. AT & T Corp.

439 F. Supp. 2d 974 · District Court, N.D. California · Jul 20, 2006

Qualified immunity shields state actors from liability for civil damages “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … are not clearly established and deny them qualified immunity when they violate statutory rights that similarly are not clearly established.”); accord Tapley, 211 F.3d at 1216.

Doan v. Watson

168 F. Supp. 2d 932 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Oct 10, 2001

Qualified immunity Defendants contend that they should enjoy qualified immunity for their administration of the strip-search procedure, pursuant to § 1983. … Officials acting under qualified immunity are not subjected to suit “unless their actions violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights then known to a reasonable officer.” Ulichny v. Merton Cmty. Sch.

Jabbar-El v. Sullivan

811 F. Supp. 265 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Nov 30, 1992

Restated this means that a defendant has “qualified immunity unless plaintiffs’ ‘rights were so clearly established when the acts were committed that any officer in the defendant’s position, measured objectively, would have … To prevail against a claim of qualified immunity, the plaintiff must set forth a particular and clearly established violation. Id. at 650 . Allegations of malice on the part of the defendant will not defeat the defense.

Pribula v. Wyoming Area School District

599 F. Supp. 2d 564 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 20, 2009

Qualified Immunity “The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … Each of the individual Defendants in this case is entitled to qualified immunity unless their conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right. See Anderson v.

Dormu v. District of Columbia

795 F. Supp. 2d 7 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 7, 2011

If no constitutional right was violated, qualified immunity is appropriate. Id. … Under the second step of the qualified immunity analysis, the officers would nonetheless be immune from suit if Dormu’s Fourth Amendment rights were not clearly established at the time of the arrest.

Hobart v. City of Stafford

784 F. Supp. 2d 732 · District Court, S.D. Texas · Apr 29, 2011

Officials sued in their individual capacities are protected by qualified immunity unless the act violates a constitutional right clearly established at the time. Sanchez v. Swyden, 139 F.3d 464, 466-467 (5th Cir.1998). … To determine whether the plaintiff has overcome the presumption of qualified immunity, the Court first considers whether the plaintiff has proven a violation of a clearly established constitutional right. Collins v.

Mann v. Palmerton Area School District

189 F. Supp. 3d 467 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 2, 2016

Qualified Immunity Defendants argue that even if Plaintiffs can establish their state-created danger claim, Coach Walkowiak is entitled to qualified immunity. … In analyzing whether the coach was entitled to qualified immunity, the Third Circuit explained that although district court opinions “may be relevant to the determination of when a right was clearly established for qualified

Heyne v. METROPOLITAN NASHVILLE PUBLIC SCHOOLS

686 F. Supp. 2d 724 · District Court, M.D. Tennessee · Nov 3, 2009

Defendants argue that they did not violate any clearly established constitutional rights of Christian Heyne, that the individual Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity, and that Defendant Metro cannot be liable because … Qualified Immunity The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which

El-Amin v. Tirey

817 F. Supp. 694 · District Court, W.D. Tennessee · Mar 8, 1993

The question of whether an official is protected by qualified immunity turns on “the objective legal reasonableness” of the action, assessed in light of the legal rules that were “clearly established” at the time the action … Consequently, defendants Ring and Hemby are protected by qualified immunity.

Shiyan Jiang v. Tex. Comm'n on Envtl. Quality

321 F. Supp. 3d 738 · District Court, W.D. Texas · Aug 13, 2018

Public officials are entitled to qualified immunity when "their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known." Harlow v. … "The second prong of the qualified-immunity analysis asks whether the right in question was 'clearly established' at the time of the violation." Id. at 1866 (quoting Hope v.

Prisma Zona Exploratoria De Puerto Rico, Inc. v. Calderon

154 F. Supp. 2d 245 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Aug 14, 2001

Defendants responded by filing a motion to dismiss based on Eleventh Amendment immunity and qualified immunity grounds. The motion to dismiss stands submitted. … Determination of whether a reasonable official should have understood that a specific conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right, or whether an entity is to be considered an “arm of the state”, are fact intensive

Van Deelen v. Shawnee Mission Unified School District 512

316 F. Supp. 2d 1052 · District Court, D. Kansas · Feb 18, 2004

Qualified Immunity Under certain circumstances, the affirmative defense of qualified immunity shields public officials from individual liability in actions brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 . Harlow v. … At the very least, the law was not clearly established that plaintiffs conduct was constitutionally protected, thus entitling defendants Krawitz and Burgat to qualified immunity on this basis as well.