Case law

Estate of Young v. State of New York Office of Mental Retardation & Developmental Disabilities

649 F. Supp. 2d 282 · District Court, S.D. New York · Aug 27, 2009

are alleged to have violated.’ ” 58 A defendant is entitled to qualified immunity if either (1) the defendant’s actions did not violate clearly established law or (2) it was objectively reasonable for the defendant to believe … clearly established at the time the violation occurred.

Quinn v. Zerkle

District Court, S.D. West Virginia · Dec 20, 2021

Even if the Court finds that the entry does constitute a Fourth Amendment violation, they argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity because “there is no federal case law or case law in West Virginia that clearly … He argues that clearly established precedent precludes the claim of qualified immunity.

Fuhr v. City of Sherman, Texas

District Court, E.D. Texas · Feb 3, 2023

Servs., 47 F.3d 1438, 1444 (5th Cir. 1995) (“A fact finder can infer pretext if it finds that the employee was “clearly better qualified” (as opposed to merely better or as qualified) than the employees who are selected … Fuhr has not met this high standard of establishing that he was “vastly” more qualified for the job than Coleman.

Cruz v. City of New York

232 F. Supp. 3d 438 · District Court, S.D. New York · Feb 8, 2017

Qualified immunity. … “Qualified immunity is unavailable where, as here, the action violates an accused’s clearly established constitutional rights, and no reasonably competent police officer could believe otherwise.”

Trujillo v. City of Ontario

428 F. Supp. 2d 1094 · District Court, C.D. California · Apr 14, 2006

Qualified Immunity “[government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … If an officer’s actions are objectively reasonable under the circumstances and in light of the clearly established law, then qualified immunity should be found. Anderson, 483 U.S. at 641 , 107 S.Ct. 3034 .

Oquendo-Rivera v. Toledo

736 F. Supp. 2d 434 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Sep 7, 2010

Qualified Immunity The defendants argue that defendant Feliciano is entitled to qualified immunity. 8 The qualified immunity doctrine protects government officers and employees from suit on federal claims for damages where … “In administering the [Supreme] Court’s test, this circuit has tended to list separately the two sub-parts of the ‘clearly established’ prong along with the first prong and, as a result, has articulated the qualified immunity

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.”

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.

Zubrod v. Hoch

232 F. Supp. 3d 1076 · District Court, N.D. Iowa · Jan 8, 2017

entitled to qualified immunity. … More recent Supreme Court decisions cast some doubt on whether even circuit precedent can constitute clearly established law for purposes of qualified immunity. See, e.g., Taylor v.

FRY EX REL. ESTATE OF FRY v. City of Galena

450 F. Supp. 2d 1236 · District Court, D. Kansas · Sep 12, 2006

Thus, a defendant is entitled to qualified immunity if the plaintiff fails to show a violation of a constitutional right at all or if the plaintiff fails to show the law was clearly established. Id. … Fry has failed to establish that defendants acted recklessly and likewise has failed to establish the Fourth Amendment constitutional violation necessary to overcome defendants’ claim of qualified immunity. b.

Rouse v. Bolden

36 F. Supp. 2d 204 · District Court, S.D. New York · Mar 1, 1999

In our circuit, “[a] qualified immunity defense is established if (a) the defendant’s action did not violate clearly established law, or (b) it was objectively reasonable for the defendant to believe that his action did not … immunity.

Daul v. Meckus

897 F. Supp. 606 · District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 24, 1995

Qualified Immunity Government officials performing discretionary functions are “generally shielded from civil liability so long as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … The availability of qualified immunity typically turns on the “objective legal reasonableness” of the official’s action assessed in light of the legal rules that were “clearly established” at the time it was taken.

Fieldcamp v. City of New York

242 F. Supp. 2d 388 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jan 29, 2003

Qualified Immunity A defendant is entitled to qualified immunity if his conduct does not violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. … Consequently, Detective Lorenz is not entitled to a defense of qualified immunity.

Walsh v. City of Auburn

942 F. Supp. 788 · District Court, N.D. New York · Oct 15, 1996

A defendant sued as an individual is entitled to qualified immunity from damages if he is performing a discretionary function and his conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … The defendant must show either that his conduct did not violate clearly established rights or that it was objectively reasonable to believe that his actions did not violate clearly established rights. Soares v.

Callis v. Sellars

931 F. Supp. 504 · District Court, S.D. Texas · Feb 27, 1996

In examining an official’s claim of qualified immunity, courts follow a two-step process. The first step is to ascertain whether the plaintiff alleges “the violation of a clearly established constitutional right.” … Even if an official’s conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right, he is entitled to qualified immunity if the conduct was objectively reasonable. Salas v. Carpenter, 980 F.2d at 310 .

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.

Spechler v. Tobin

591 F. Supp. 2d 1350 · District Court, S.D. Florida · Dec 10, 2008

Qualified Immunity The qualified immunity defense may be raised and addressed on a motion to dismiss, and will be granted if the complaint “fails to allege the violation of a clearly established constitutional right.” … Accordingly, the allegations in the complaint do not establish an access to courts claim and the Chief Judge is entitled to qualified immunity. c.

Grimm v. Borough of Norristown

226 F. Supp. 2d 606 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 11, 2002

Analysis of Qualified Immunity Defense We find that there are cases that clearly establish the substantive due process rights claimed by plaintiffs. See, e.g., Blanche Road Corp. v. … If the right is not clearly established in this sense, then the officer is entitled to qualified immunity. See Vaughn v. Ruoff, 253 F.3d 1124 , 1128 (8th Cir.2001). 29 .

Hardy v. Town of Hayneville

50 F. Supp. 2d 1176 · District Court, M.D. Alabama · Jun 8, 1999

An official is entitled to qualified immunity if he is performing discretionary functions and his actions do “ ‘not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known … a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, and they are entitled to qualified immunity at this stage in the proceedings if the Plaintiffs complaint fails to allege a violation of a clearly established constitutional right.

Huron Valley Hospital, Inc. v. City of Pontiac

612 F. Supp. 654 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Jun 17, 1985

In the Sixth Circuit, Harlow qualified immunity is an affirmative defense. In Alexander v. … Alexander, 706 F.2d 751 (6th Cir.1983), the court held: [A] Section 1983 defendant retains the burden of pleading the qualified immunity defense ..., and proving either that the law was not clearly established at the time