Case law

Figueroa v. Fernandez

921 F. Supp. 889 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Mar 15, 1996

Naturally, Plaintiffs must assert a violation of a clearly established constitutional right before they can even begin to defeat the Mayor’s motion for qualified immunity. Siegert v. … In addition, Plaintiffs’ compensatory damage claims against the Mayor fail to allege a violation of a clearly established constitutional right. On these claims, the Mayor is protected by qualified immunity.

Demster v. CITY OF LENEXA, KANSAS

352 F. Supp. 2d 1165 · District Court, D. Kansas · Jan 18, 2005

Plaintiffs respond by arguing that qualified immunity does not apply in this case because the officers violated plaintiffs’ clearly established Fourth Amendment Rights. … The court, however, finds that no clearly established right was violated by defendants’ conduct.

Schwab v. Wood

767 F. Supp. 574 · District Court, D. Delaware · Jun 12, 1991

Qualified Immunity A. … Standard for Qualified Immunity State officials performing discretionary functions are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established constitutional rights of which

Hargrove v. Riley

100 F. Supp. 2d 1271 · District Court, E.D. Washington · Apr 19, 2000

Qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions “[f]rom liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established constitutional rights of which a reasonable … Riley is not entitled to qualified immunity because she failed to establish that her conduct was reasonable notwithstanding the existence of clearly established law.

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.

Corbett v. Transportation Security Administration

968 F. Supp. 2d 1171 · District Court, S.D. Florida · Nov 16, 2012

Chamizo finally argues that he is entitled to qualified immunity, as Plaintiff’s allegations fail to establish any violation of a clearly established constitutional right. (Id. at 5-15.) … In the Eleventh Circuit, “the law can be ‘clearly established’ for qualified immunity purposes only by decisions of the U.S.

Jiménez-González v. Alvarez-Rubio

683 F. Supp. 2d 177 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Feb 8, 2010

The qualified immunity doctrine shields public officials from civil suits as long as “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … The second “clearly established” step of the qualified immunity analysis has two aspects. Id. One aspect focuses on “the clarity of the law at the time of the alleged civil rights violation.” Id.

Way v. Shawnee Township

192 F. Supp. 3d 867 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Jun 20, 2016

Qualified Immunity Finally, defendants argue Truesdale is entitled to qualified immunity. *881 Qualified immunity is not a defense to liability. Mitchell v. … was “clearly established” when he or she did so.

Idom v. Natchez-Adams School District

115 F. Supp. 3d 792 · District Court, S.D. Mississippi · Jul 14, 2015

In assessing a claim of qualified immunity, courts apply the two pronged analysis established in Saucier v. … Turning to Hill and Smith, both have raised the defense of qualified immunity. To overcome this defense, Idom must allege that a clearly established constitutional right was violated.

Nelson v. Stalder

135 F. Supp. 2d 745 · District Court, E.D. Louisiana · Feb 13, 2001

of the clearly established legal rules. … The court finds that Nelson has satisfied his burden of rebutting defendants’ qualified immunity defense by establishing that the defendants’ actions violated a law which the court finds was clearly established, and by establishing

Richard v. Perkins

373 F. Supp. 2d 1211 · District Court, D. Kansas · Jun 13, 2005

Qualified immunity provides government officials immunity from suit as well as from liability for their discretionary acts. See Mitchell v. … the *1217 non-renewal of his scholarship was not clearly established.

Tungwarara v. United States

400 F. Supp. 2d 1213 · District Court, N.D. California · Oct 13, 2005

The defense 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 a reasonable … On the uncontested facts of the search here, however, Ludwigs is entitled to qualified immunity. C. Plaintiffs Fifth Amendment Right To Equal Protection Was Not Clearly Established In 2002.

Sparing v. Village of Olympia Fields

77 F. Supp. 2d 891 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Dec 13, 1999

Although qualified immunity is a defense, the plaintiff has the burden of establishing that the defendant violated a clearly established constitutional right. See Spiegel, 196 F.3d 717, 722 . 2. … If a § 1983 plaintiff establishes a constitutional violation, the defendant is entitled to qualified immunity, unless the plaintiff also demonstrates that the law “was so ‘clearly established’ that ‘a reasonable official

Goines v. Valley Community Services Board

103 F. Supp. 3d 791 · District Court, W.D. Virginia · May 4, 2015

Id. at 332 . 9 In that case, the officers were entitled to qualified immunity because their belief that they had probable cause did not violate clearly established law. … the violation of clearly established law.

Sledd v. Lindsay

864 F. Supp. 819 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Sep 30, 1994

It is a well settled tenet that under the judicially created doctrine of qualified immunity, public officials performing discretionary functions are shielded from civil damages unless their conduct violates a clearly established … “The doctrine of qualified immunity shields public officials ... from damages unless their conduct was unreasonable in light of clearly established law.” Elder v.

Thomas v. Devries

834 F. Supp. 398 · District Court, M.D. Georgia · Oct 19, 1993

Suits against state employees in their individual capacities may be subject to qualified or good faith immunity, and such defendants are shielded from liability insofar as their conduct does not violate “ ‘clearly established … Busby also preserves qualified immunity when there is no violation of a clearly defined property interests associated with substantive due process, and in the present ease there is no clearly defined property interest that

Dowling v. Hannigan

995 F. Supp. 1188 · District Court, D. Kansas · Jan 30, 1998

Defendant asserts that he is also protected by the doctrine of qualified immunity. Qualified immunity shields defendant from pecuniary lability unless he violated “clearly established” constitutional or statutory norms. … Summary judgment on the question of qualified immunity is therefore inappropriate. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendant Lt.

Cerniglia v. County of Sacramento

566 F. Supp. 2d 1034 · District Court, E.D. California · Jun 17, 2008

The issue of qualified immunity was not before the Ninth Circuit in Jones , consequently it did not address the issue. Qualified immunity was, however, before the Court in Hy-drick. … In analyzing qualified immunity with respect to the substantive due process claim and holding that it was clearly established that the substantive due process protections of the Fourteenth Amendment apply to SVPs, 500 F.3d

Long v. City and County of Honolulu

378 F. Supp. 2d 1241 · District Court, D. Hawaii · Jul 11, 2005

If the answer is no, there is qualified immunity. If the answer is yes, the court then asks whether the right was “clearly established.” Id. at 201-02, 121 S.Ct. 2151 . … See, e.g., Blanford, 406 F.3d at 1116 (finding qualified immunity where deadly force was used to stop suspect appearing to threaten others with a sword); Billing - ton, 292 F.3d at 1184-85 (finding qualified immunity where

Estrada ex rel. Estate of Estrada v. Cook

166 F. Supp. 3d 1230 · District Court, D. New Mexico · Mar 16, 2015

“When a defendant asserts qualified immunity at summary judgment, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to show that: (1) the defendant violated a constitutional right and (2) the constitutional right was clearly established … are entitled to qualified immunity.”