Case law

Thomas v. City of Galveston, Texas

800 F. Supp. 2d 826 · District Court, S.D. Texas · Aug 1, 2011

To determine whether the plaintiff has overcome the presumption of qualified immunity, the Court first considers whether the plaintiff has proven a violation of a clearly established constitutional right. Collins v. … Defendants’ argument for qualified immunity also fails. First, “[t]he right to be free from arrest without probable cause is a clearly established constitutional right.” Mangieri v.

Donna Esty, individually and as Administratrix of the Estate of Hagen Esty-Lennon v. Town of Haverhill, et al.

2018 DNH 115 · District Court, D. New Hampshire · Jun 8, 2018

established for qualified immunity purposes, not whether an underlying constitutional violation had occurred. … Police officers “are entitled to qualified immunity under § 1983 unless (1) they violated a federal statutory or constitutional right, and (2) the unlawfulness of their conduct was ‘clearly established at the time.’”

Taylor v. Kveton

684 F. Supp. 179 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Mar 18, 1988

Qualified Immunity Finally, defendants contend that, even if they used excessive force, they have qualified immunity from liability. … The principle behind qualified immunity is that “[i]f the law at that time was not clearly established, an official could not reasonably be expected to anticipate subsequent legal developments, nor could he fairly be said

Gonsalves v. City of New Bedford

939 F. Supp. 921 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Aug 1, 1996

Qualified Immunity As I indicated earlier, I also find that the plaintiff has proven that the defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity for their intentional cover-up in the circumstances of this case. … City of Laconia, the requirement that the federal right at issue must be clearly established does not mean that a government official has qualified immunity “‘unless the very action in question has previously been held to

Gaston v. Coughlin

861 F. Supp. 199 · District Court, W.D. New York · Aug 12, 1994

Therefore, Defendants Le-Baron and Grant, both prison hearing officers, are entitled to qualified immunity from liability for damages if their conduct did not violate a clearly established statutory or constitutional right … Accordingly, the hearing officer was entitled to qualified immunity.

Ostling v. City of Bainbridge Island

872 F. Supp. 2d 1117 · District Court, W.D. Washington · May 24, 2012

But qualified immunity provides a higher standard: the right must be “clearly established” at the time of the incident. The right to be free from the use of excessive force is, of course, clearly established. … And for similar reasons, the Court must deny qualified immunity. The right to medical aid in these circumstances is “clearly established,” see City of Revere v.

Myers v. Simpson

831 F. Supp. 2d 945 · District Court, E.D. Virginia · Dec 9, 2011

The “clearly established” standard of qualified immunity ensures that government officials are on fair notice that their conduct is impermissible. Defendants have raised qualified immunity as a defense. … Qualified Immunity and Clearly Established Rights Even assuming, arguendo, that the women-only classes violate equal protection, Myers’ request for damages fails because the defendants are protected by qualified immunity.

Anonymous v. Kaye

987 F. Supp. 131 · District Court, N.D. New York · Dec 15, 1997

In this circuit, [p]ublic officials are entitled to qualified immunity from claims for damages if (1) their conduct did not violate federal statutory or constitutional rights that were clearly established at the time, or … First, their conduct did not violate federal statutory or constitutional rights that were clearly established at the time.

Thomas v. Fulwood, Jr.

128 F. Supp. 3d 341 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 14, 2015

Qualified Immunity In the alternative, defendants argue that, even if Fulwood does not enjoy absolute quasi- judicial immunity, he would be protected by qualified immunity. See generally Defs.’ Mem. at 26-31. … ” and whether the right at issue was clearly established at the time of the defendant’s alleged misconduct.

Harrington v. Grayson

811 F. Supp. 1221 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Jan 22, 1993

the qualified immunity inquiry____ Lopez v. … Therefore, the Court concludes that Gray-son is entitled to the protection of qualified immunity.

Wormley v. United States

601 F. Supp. 2d 27 · District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 24, 2009

is not clearly established. … So long as a defendant’s alleged conduct violated some clearly established constitutional right, that defendant is not entitled to qualified immunity.

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.

Peterson v. Tomaselli

469 F. Supp. 2d 146 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jan 16, 2007

The doctrine of qualified immunity shields state officials from personal liability if their actions did not violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … If either the right was not clearly established, or it was objectively reasonable for the defendant to believe the acts did not violate plaintiffs rights, the defendant is entitled to qualified immunity.

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.

Kuha v. City of Minnetonka

176 F. Supp. 2d 926 · District Court, D. Minnesota · Dec 3, 2001

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity is afforded to an officer if his or her actions do not violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. … Even if this were not so, the Court finds the officers’ actions did not violate clearly established law. 1. Clearly Established Law The determination of what law is clearly established is a “purely legal question.”

Hudson v. Spencer

180 F. Supp. 3d 70 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Sep 25, 2015

Qualified immunity Qualified immunity protects state officials against § 1983 suits for damages if them conduct did “not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have … To determine whether qualified immunity applies, the court must decide 1) whether the official violated the plaintiffs constitutional right and 2) whether that right was clearly established at the time of the violation.

Ryncarz v. Eikenberry

824 F. Supp. 1493 · District Court, E.D. Washington · Jun 25, 1993

Qualified Immunity “[Gjovernment officials performing discretionary functions! … Accordingly, defendants Bailey and Robertson are entitled to qualified immunity from damages.

Smith v. Shelby County, TN

721 F. Supp. 2d 712 · District Court, W.D. Tennessee · Jun 14, 2010

from civil liability unless, in the course of performing their discretionary functions, they violate the plaintiffs clearly established constitutional rights. 51 In other words, a “defendant enjoys qualified immunity on … established.” 52 The defense of qualified immunity “ordinarily applies unless it is obvious that no reasonably competent official would have concluded that the actions taken were [] lawful.” 53 When qualified immunity is

Johnson v. Root

812 F. Supp. 2d 914 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Sep 1, 2011

It may be that with further development of a proper record, Root may establish that he is entitled to absolute immunity. … Root does not seek qualified immunity at this time.

Samuel v. Michaud

980 F. Supp. 1381 · District Court, D. Idaho · Mar 7, 1996

Qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established constitutional rights of which a reasonable … Qualified immunity “generally turns on the ‘objective legal reasonableness’ of the action assessed in light of the legal rules that were ‘clearly established’ at the time it was taken.” Anderson v.