Case law

Han v. Department of Justice

824 F. Supp. 1480 · District Court, D. Hawaii · Feb 24, 1993

As the Ninth Circuit stated: “Officials performing discretionary functions, as were these officials, are entitled to qualified immunity if their conduct ‘does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights … In order to avoid a qualified immunity claim plaintiffs must show the law clearly established that the TPAs were illegal and that the Chairperson and members of the Commission had a duty to disapprove them.

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.

Duriex-Gauthier v. Lopez-Nieves

135 F. Supp. 2d 311 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Mar 20, 2001

Defendants have also averred that they are entitled to qualified immunity on the First Amendment claim. … Defendants, therefore, are not entitled to qualified immunity on plaintiffs First Amendment claim.

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).

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.

Jolly v. Klein

923 F. Supp. 931 · District Court, S.D. Texas · Mar 29, 1996

Qualified Immunity Dr. Klein asserts that he is entitled to qualified immunity in this case. … When determining whether qualified immunity is available, the actions of a reasonably competent official are assessed in the light of the legal rules that were clearly established at the time the action was taken.

Whitaker v. Pima County

640 F. Supp. 2d 1095 · District Court, D. Arizona · Feb 17, 2009

Petropoulos is entitled to qualified immunity. Analysis of Qualified Immunity as to Maldonado Plaintiff does not dispute that Whitaker accelerated through the lot and hit Maldonado’s vehicle. … Maldonado is entitled to qualified immunity.

Senu-Oke v. Jackson State University

521 F. Supp. 2d 551 · District Court, S.D. Mississippi · Oct 12, 2007

immunity under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 , and argued that [they] should be granted qualified immunity”). … their defense of qualified immunity. 5 .

Zavaro v. Coughlin

775 F. Supp. 84 · District Court, W.D. New York · Sep 20, 1991

That issue presents a question which turns on Homrighouse’s right to a qualified immunity defense. … A state official may establish a right to qualified immunity from suit and from liability by showing (i) that it was not clear at the time of the official acts that the interest asserted by the plaintiff was protected by

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

Robertson v. Town of Farmerville

830 F. Supp. 2d 183 · District Court, W.D. Louisiana · Nov 17, 2011

Defendants argue that qualified immunity should be granted to these claims because the law was not clearly established and because Jackson did not knowingly violate such law. … Under qualified immunity, a state actor will be shielded from personal liability unless the right the actor violated was clearly established at the time of the violation. Harlow v.

Ramos v. Hillsborough County

District Court, D. New Hampshire · Mar 21, 1997

if the challenged “‘conduct [did] not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’” … defendants are 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.

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.

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 .

Huemmer v. MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL, ETC.

474 F. Supp. 704 · District Court, D. Maryland · Jul 9, 1979

The immunity established under Tenney was absolute, and Justice Powell, writing for the Court in Imbler , which established absolute immunity under section 1983 for a state prosecuting officer, characterized its scope as … Strickland rule, the immunity defense would be unavailing to petitioners if the constitutional right allegedly infringed by them was clearly established at the time of their challenged conduct, if they knew or should have

Woods v. Aldworth

561 F. Supp. 891 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Apr 4, 1983

Aldworth does not contend that the constitutional rights at issue here were not clearly established during the period in question. Instead, relying on Procunier v. … When Procunier was decided, the standard for qualified immunity included both a subjective and an objective component.

Ramirez v. County of Los Angeles

397 F. Supp. 2d 1208 · District Court, C.D. California · Oct 25, 2005

Bravo now moves for summary judgment asserting qualified immunity, the doctrine that immunizes law enforcement officers from civil suits where their conduct did not violate a constitutional right that was clearly established … The Constitutional rights in dispute have been clearly established.

Hirpassa v. Albert

648 F. Supp. 2d 148 · District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 31, 2009

. *151 By definition, qualified immunity is not absolute. … However, “[a] plaintiff who seeks damages for violation of constitutional or statutory rights may overcome the defendant official’s qualified immunity only by showing that those rights were clearly established at the time

Harris v. Evans

795 F. Supp. 1060 · District Court, D. Kansas · May 1, 1992

Individual Capacity Claims Public officials performing discretionary functions generally enjoy qualified immunity from civil damages liability “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … When a qualified immunity claim is raised in a motion for summary judgment, the relevant question is whether a reasonable official could have believed that his or her acts were lawful in light of clearly established law and