Case law

Cunningham v. Gates

989 F. Supp. 1256 · District Court, C.D. California · Dec 15, 1997

IMMUNITY STANDARD “Government officials who perform discretionary functions are protected from liability for civil damages as long as ‘their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights … The threshold determination of whether the law is clearly established is a question of law for the court. [Citations.]

Carey v. Maloney

480 F. Supp. 2d 548 · District Court, D. Connecticut · Mar 30, 2007

Qualified immunity is warranted if either (1) the official’s actions did not violate clearly established law, or (2) even if the actions violated a clearly established law, the official was objectively reasonable in believing … Qualified Immunity as to Fox and Maloney As described above, “[t]he right of an individual not to be subjected to excessive force has long been clearly established.” Calamia v.

Jag v. City of Warren

944 F. Supp. 606 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Nov 5, 1996

clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … Therefore, when a defendant moves for summary judgment based on qualified immunity, as is the case here, the plaintiff must: 1) identify a clearly established right alleged to have been violated; and 2) establish that a reasonable

Kade v. Workie

238 F. Supp. 3d 625 · District Court, D. Delaware · Feb 27, 2017

actions are protected by qualified immunity if she can show that the ‘offending’ conduct did not ‘violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights which a reasonable person would have known.’” … Thus, setting aside the issue as to whether Defendant could even assert the defense of qualified immunity, Plaintiffs constitutional right is clearly established in light of the established law.

Ross v. Lichtenfeld

755 F. Supp. 2d 467 · District Court, S.D. New York · Dec 6, 2010

A public official defendant performing a discretionary function is entitled to qualified immunity when “[his] conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would … Thus, Lichtenfeld would be entitled to qualified immunity if either (1) the constitutional prohibition he violated was not clearly established, or (2) a reasonable person in Lichtenfeld’s position would not have believed

Bradley v. Village of Greenwood Lake

376 F. Supp. 2d 528 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jul 13, 2005

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity shields a public official from civil liability when his conduct does not violate a clearly established statutory or constitutional right. … Whether an official is entitled to qualified immunity requires a two-part analysis.

Manzanillo v. Lewis

267 F. Supp. 3d 1261 · District Court, N.D. California · Jan 12, 2017

A court considering a claim of qualified immunity must determine whether -the plaintiff has. alleged the deprivation of an actual constitutional right and whether such right was “clearly established.” Pearson v. … Qualified Immunity Defendants Lewis, Hallock, Wood, and McGuyer also argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity.

Davila-Torres v. Feliciano-Torres

924 F. Supp. 2d 359 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Feb 20, 2013

to qualified immunity. … clearly enough to reject the qualified immunity defense of the defendants.” 204 F.3d 1, 6 (1st Cir.2000).

Billado v. Parry

937 F. Supp. 337 · District Court, D. Vermont · Jul 18, 1996

The deputies do not dispute that the law governing their § 1983 duties was clearly established on March 21, 1992. … Sheriff Manosh claims that he cannot be held liable for the negligent actions of his deputies because they are protected by qualified immunity, and he is protected by official immunity.

Stephens v. City of Akron

729 F. Supp. 2d 945 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Jul 27, 2010

Clearly Established Inquiry The law clearly establishes that an officer may not use deadly force to seize an unarmed suspect. … on the issue of qualified immunity.

Gallardo v. DiCarlo

203 F. Supp. 2d 1160 · District Court, C.D. California · May 13, 2002

Qualified Immunity DiCarlo asserts that she is entitled to dismissal of the FAC on the grounds of qualified immunity. 11 In Section 1983 claims, the doctrine of qualified immunity shields government officials from civil damage … She is not entitled to qualified immunity based on the allegations in the FAC. D.

Pate v. United States

277 F. Supp. 2d 1 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 23, 2003

Second, regarding defendant Quick’s claims of absolute immunity, plaintiff argues that immunity is only warranted where officials “can prove that their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … When determining whether an official is entitled to qualified immunity, courts must ask whether the official engaged in conduct that violated the clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of a person of which

Amili v. City of Tukwila

31 F. Supp. 3d 1274 · District Court, W.D. Washington · Jul 10, 2014

The doctrine of qualified immunity, however, ■ protects government officers “performing discretionary functions ... from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … See Torres, 648 F.3d at 1129 (test of whether right is clearly established cannot be so narrow that qualified immunity is transformed into absolute immunity).

Isquierdo v. Frederick

922 F. Supp. 1072 · District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Apr 22, 1996

“does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … For the purpose of determining whether a defendant is entitled to qualified immunity the plaintiffs rights must be clearly established under the particular circumstances confronting the official at the time of the questioned

Doyle v. Dukakis

699 F. Supp. 357 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Nov 4, 1988

Qualified Immunity. The Court need not rest its decision on such a broad determination, however, in light of the qualified immunity from suit available to these defendants. In Harlow v. … The Supreme Court wrote that if a judge, on summary judgment, determines that “the law was clearly established at the time an action occurred, the immunity defense ordinarily should fail since a reasonably competent public

Wesbrock v. Ledford

District Court, D. Arizona · Jun 3, 2020

Qualified Immunity 17 Finally, the Glendale Defendants argue they are entitled to qualified immunity … In that scenario, the Glendale Defendants would be entitled to 4 qualified immunity. Reed v.

Davenport v. Tunnell

698 F. Supp. 1542 · District Court, W.D. Oklahoma · Oct 28, 1988

In Coen , our circuit stated: Qualified immunity is an affirmative defense that protects government officials from persona] liability unless their actions violate clearly established law of which a reasonable person would … Moreover, if the law in this area is not yet “clearly established”, defendants still prevail because plaintiffs failed to clear the first hurdle in the qualified immunity analysis.

Sorrells v. Gattison

644 F. Supp. 124 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Aug 25, 1986

Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 , 102 S.Ct. 2727 , 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1981), the Supreme Court redefined the qualified immunity doctrine. … violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. 457 U.S. at 815-16 , 102 S.Ct. at 2736-37 .

Poe v. Southeast Delco School District

165 F. Supp. 3d 271 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 16, 2015

Qualified immunity shields government employees sued in their personal capacities from liability unless their conduct violates “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights ... which a reasonable person would have … Qualified immunity will protect Mosakowski if Plaintiffs have failed to allege she violated their constitutional rights or if Plaintiffs have alleged a violation of a right that was not clearly established at the time of

Salman v. Nevada Commission on Judicial Discipline

104 F. Supp. 2d 1262 · District Court, D. Nevada · Jul 5, 2000

Government officials who perform discretionary functions are entitled to qualified immunity only “only insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … A Plaintiff bears the burden of proof regarding whether a right is clearly established. Id.