Case law

Orden v. Cornell University

243 F. Supp. 3d 287 · District Court, N.D. New York · Mar 22, 2017

The Cornell defendants contend that the doctrine of qualified immunity shields Frisbie from any § 1983 liability as he was performing his job duties in an objectively reasonable manner on November 2, 2013. 4 Qualified immunity … Given the pleadings, an objectively reasonable officer would know that such actions violated clearly established constitutional rights. As a result, Frisbie is not entitled to qualified immunity. V.

Townsend v. Coffee County

854 F. Supp. 2d 1345 · District Court, S.D. Georgia · Aug 9, 2011

Thus, the burden shifts to Plaintiff to demonstrate that Defendant Grantham is not entitled to qualified immunity. Oliver, 586 F.3d at 905 . (b) Was There a Violation of Clearly Established Constitutional Law? … Even accepting the allegations in Plaintiffs Complaint as true, Plaintiff has not shown that Grantham violated clearly established law in the force he employed.

TinleySparks, Inc. v. Village of Tinley Park

181 F. Supp. 3d 548 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · May 11, 2015

“A government official sued under § 1983 is entitled to qualified immunity unless the official violated a statutory or constitutional right that was clearly established at the time of the - challenged conduct.” … The relevant question for qualified immunity purposes is whether the actions described above “violated a statutory or constitutional right that was clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct.”

Fritz v. Daly et al.

2006 DNH 125 · District Court, D. New Hampshire · Oct 31, 2006

was not clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct. … "Because Pickering's constitutional rule turns upon a fact-intensive balancing test, it can rarely be considered clearly established for purposes of qualified immunity." Fabiano v.

Holder v. Town of Newton, et al.

2010 DNH 019 · District Court, D. New Hampshire · Feb 3, 2010

But because the law is not clearly established on that point, the officers are entitled to qualified immunity. This court therefore grants summary judgment on all claims. A. … to qualified immunity.”

(PS) Petersen v. Sims

District Court, E.D. California · Dec 17, 2021

if it was clearly 5 established.” … immunity or 7 the specific question of whether Defendant’s conduct violated a right clearly established at the 8 time.

United States ex rel. Parikh v. Citizens Medical Center

977 F. Supp. 2d 654 · District Court, S.D. Texas · Sep 20, 2013

If that defense applies to FCA claims, they would have an immunity “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … The qualified immunity standard reflects the defense’s typical application to these cases asserting individual rights: the defense is available for officials “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established

Dawkins v. Gonyea

646 F. Supp. 2d 594 · District Court, S.D. New York · Aug 18, 2009

Qualified Immunity Government officials performing discretionary functions generally enjoy qualified immunity from civil damages “in *613 sofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … Qualified immunity is available “when the undisputed facts establish that it was objectively reasonable for the defendants to believe that their actions did not violate clearly established rights.” Defore v.

Richter v. Maryland

590 F. Supp. 2d 730 · District Court, D. Maryland · Dec 22, 2008

Defendant Beatty asserts that, even if plaintiff has projected sufficient evidence to establish a constitutional violation, qualified immunity bars plaintiffs claims. … Qualified immunity shields government officials who undertake discretionary functions from civil liability as long as their conduct does not violate clearly established constitutional rights. Orem v.

Wong v. City & County of Honolulu

333 F. Supp. 2d 942 · District Court, D. Hawaii · Aug 26, 2004

The doctrine of qualified immunity shields public officials performing discretionary functions from personal liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … The Court therefore finds that Plaintiff satisfies the first prong of the qualified immunity analysis. Turning to the question of whether Plaintiffs rights were clearly established at the time of the alleged violation.

Howard v. Pierce

981 F. Supp. 190 · District Court, W.D. New York · Oct 22, 1997

Qualified immunity shields public officials “from civil damages liability insofar as their conduct ‘does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known,’ Harlow … Therefore, “[t]o defeat an official’s claim of qualified immunity, the individual’s right must have been clearly established at the time of the alleged violation.” LaBounty v. Coughlin, 1996 WL 711497 *1 (S.D.N.Y.1996).

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

Gonzalez v. Tilmer

775 F. Supp. 256 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Sep 30, 1991

O’Quinn responds to Gonzalez’s extended detention claim by invoking a qualified immunity defense. … Under the qualified immunity standard established in Harlow v.

Simmons v. Skelonc

District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 29, 2021

conduct was ‘clearly established at the time.’” … Because Plaintiff has failed to “allege sufficient facts to establish that [Officer Skelonc] is not entitled to qualified immunity,” Patterson, 999 F.

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.

Armstead v. Township of Upper Dublin

347 F. Supp. 2d 188 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 23, 2004

“[Qualified immunity is an objective question to be decided by the court as a matter of law. The jury, however, determines disputed historical facts material to the qualified immunity question.” Id. … Qualified Immunity Because plaintiff has established a constitutional violation, I must now consider whether Officer Lebby should nevertheless be shielded from liability because his actions did not violate “clearly established

Gonzalez v. Otero

172 F. Supp. 3d 477 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Mar 28, 2016

Moss, — U.S. -, 134 S.Ct. 2056, 2061 , 188 L.Ed.2d 1039 (2014), the Court held that “[ó]ffícials are sheltered from suit, under a doctrine known as qualified immunity, when their conduct ‘does not violate clearly. established … the right was ‘clearly established’ at the time of the challenged conduct.’

Duncan v. Goedeke and Cleasey

837 F. Supp. 846 · District Court, S.D. Texas · Nov 22, 1993

Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, federal officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … In order to overcome a defendant official's qualified immunity from Bivens suits, a plaintiff claiming violation of constitutional rights must first show that these rights were clearly established at the time of the conduct

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.

United States v. Edelin

76 F. Supp. 2d 1 · District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 15, 1999

are not entitled to qualified immunity. … ’ qualified immunity 1 .