Case law

Mandola v. County of Nassau

222 F. Supp. 3d 203 · District Court, E.D. New York · Sep 30, 2016

and qualified immunity doctrines. … Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity.

Elphage v. Gautreaux

969 F. Supp. 2d 493 · District Court, M.D. Louisiana · Sep 3, 2013

The defendants claim that Sheriff Gautreaux is entitled to qualified immunity if a reasonable person could have believed the deputies at issue were sufficiently trained and supervised in light of clearly established law and … With regard to Deputy O’Connor, the defendants claim that he is entitled to qualified immunity if a reasonable person could have believed that he acted reasonably in light of clearly established law and the information he

Price v. University of Alabama

318 F. Supp. 2d 1084 · District Court, N.D. Alabama · Oct 23, 2003

One clear aspect of this issue is that neither the requirement for the due process nor the type of process required was “clearly established” and so qualified immunity would shield Witt from Price’s claims. … Even if the statements were stigmatizing, qualified immunity would protect Witt unless his conduct constituted a violation of a “clearly established right.”

Qasem v. Toro

737 F. Supp. 2d 147 · District Court, S.D. New York · Aug 10, 2010

Qualified Immunity Third, Thornton and Rogers claim that qualified immunity requires dismissal of this litigation as to them. … “A right is clearly established if (1) the law is defined with Supreme Court or the Second Circuit has recognized the right, and (3) ‘a reasonable defendant [would] have understood from the existing law that [his] conduct

Doe Ex Rel. Pahssen v. Merrill Community School District

610 F. Supp. 2d 789 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Mar 26, 2009

Second, Defendants have clearly raised the defense of qualified immunity with respect to Plaintiffs due process claim. … Qualified immunity provides that “government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or

Dubay v. Craze

327 F. Supp. 2d 779 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Jul 1, 2004

. § 1983 Claim Defendant Craze’s primary objection is that Plaintiffs § 1983 claim is barred by qualified immunity. … then the officer is entitled to qualified immunity.

ESTATE OF SCOTT BY SCOTT v. DeLeon

603 F. Supp. 1328 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Mar 13, 1985

I now consider the supervisory defendants' argument that they are protected against this claim by their qualified immunity, see Harlow v. … Accordingly, defendants' motion for summary judgment based on their qualified immunity is DENIED.

Jones v. Kirchner

66 F. Supp. 3d 237 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 8, 2014

Defendants argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity on this claim. Defs.’ Mem. at 34-35. I agree. … Qualified immunity does not protect “those who knowingly violate the law,” Malley v.

Rivera-Sanchez v. Autoridad De Energia Electrica

360 F. Supp. 2d 302 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Mar 1, 2005

Co-defendants also argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity. … As such, the individual co-defendants contend they are entitled to qualified immunity. (Docket No. 44, pp. 3-4). Plaintiff has failed to rebut the qualified immunity raised by the individual co-defendants.

Lawson v. Hilderbrand

88 F. Supp. 3d 84 · District Court, D. Connecticut · Feb 23, 2015

That is because 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 … The officers are protected by qualified immunity against this First Amendment claim unless the right to record them was clearly established at the time of the incident, i.e., that “the right’s contours were sufficiently definite

Hebein Ex Rel. Berman v. Young

37 F. Supp. 2d 1035 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Sep 25, 1998

Qualified immunity does not apply. … Because defendants do not raise an issue as to clearly established law, qualified immunity as to this claim need not be further considered at this time.

Zamakshari v. Dvoskin

899 F. Supp. 1097 · District Court, S.D. New York · Sep 8, 1995

Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, government officials are shielded from civil damages liability provided that their actions are discretionary in nature and do not violate a clearly established statutory or constitutional … All defendants are entitled to qualified immunity from this § 1983 suit since Zamakshari cannot show that a “clearly established” law was violated and that any of defendant’s actions were unreasonable. See Anderson v.

Jenkins v. University of Minnesota

131 F. Supp. 3d 860 · District Court, D. Minnesota · Sep 18, 2015

were not clearly established at the time. … Qualified Immunity Standard Qualified immunity shields government officials from liability if “their conduct does not violáte clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of whicfi a reasonable person would have

Brady ex rel. Estate of Murray v. City of Westland

1 F. Supp. 3d 729 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Feb 18, 2014

Defendants’ appeal to the doctrine of qualified immunity adds an extra layer of analysis to this excessive force inquiry. … Thus, the court elected to address the “easier” of the two prongs of the qualified immunity standard, holding that it was not clearly established at the time of the incident in question, May of 2007, that “using a taser repeatedly

Dominguez v. METROPOLITAN MIAMI-DADE COUNTY

359 F. Supp. 2d 1323 · District Court, S.D. Florida · Nov 23, 2004

to qualified immunity from suit. … that the public actor has violated a clearly established constitutional right.

Lewis v. Jones

District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Mar 29, 2024

Qualified Immunity “Qualified immunity shields officers from civil damage liability for discretionary acts when ‘[their] conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … to qualified immunity (Dkt.

Jones v. Russell

149 F. Supp. 3d 1095 · District Court, W.D. Wisconsin · Dec 9, 2015

To establish that Russell is entitled to qualified immunity, they must demonstrate that his conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … I conclude that' the constitutional rights at issue were clearly established at the time of their violation. Accordingly, defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity.

Regalado v. City of Chicago

40 F. Supp. 2d 1009 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Apr 2, 1999

Finally, Officers contend that they are entitled to qualified immunity because they did not violate any clearly established right possessed by Regalado. … To overcome the defense of qualified immunity, Regalado must show that the officials violated “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known” (Harlow v.

Ferguson v. City of Montgomery

969 F. Supp. 674 · District Court, M.D. Alabama · Feb 18, 1997

Both Markham and McCullough claim they are immune from the Ferguson’s Fourth Amendment § 1983 individual capacity claim under the well-established doctrine of qualified immunity. … Therefore, the court finds that Markham and McCullough’s stop and search of Ferguson did not violate clearly established constitutional law and that the officers are entitled to qualified immunity on this claim.

Craddock v. Hicks

314 F. Supp. 2d 648 · District Court, N.D. Mississippi · Oct 23, 2003

However, the Supreme Court has established that “government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established … If it does not, then the defendant is entitled to qualified immunity. Id.