Case law

Bell v. Porter

739 F. Supp. 2d 1005 · District Court, W.D. Michigan · Sep 9, 2010

Qualified immunity shields government officials from “liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known … Defendants have not argued that this right was not clearly established. Accordingly, Officer Porter is not entitled to summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity. 2.

Snider v. City of Cape Girardeau

861 F. Supp. 2d 974 · District Court, E.D. Missouri · Mar 21, 2012

Qualified immunity shields a public official from liability when his conduct does not violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” El-Ghazzawy v. … To overcome a claim of qualified immunity, plaintiff must show that the rights he asserts were clearly established so that a reasonable officer would have known that his actions were unlawful.

Aiken v. Rio Arriba Board of County Commissioners

134 F. Supp. 2d 1216 · District Court, D. New Mexico · Dec 6, 2000

In addition, Defendants Valdez, Montoya, and Morales request qualified immunity, arguing the law *1220 was not clearly established that an employee in a policy-making position was entitled to the same free-speech protections … Qualified Immunity: As to the qualified-immunity issue, Defendants have raised a true question meriting the Court’s attention.

Kaul v. Stephan

828 F. Supp. 1504 · District Court, D. Kansas · Jul 20, 1993

Once a defendant asserts the affirmative defense of qualified immunity, “[t]he plaintiff carries the burden of convincing the' court that the law was clearly established.” [Pueblo Neighborhood Health Ctrs., Inc. v.] … At the very least, it was not clearly established that a jurisdictional basis was absent. So, defendant is entitled to qualified immunity from damages liability.

Kutschbach v. Davies

885 F. Supp. 1079 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Mar 31, 1995

as measured by reference to clearly established law.” … If the law was not clearly established, the defendant is entitled to qualified immunity. Id.

Behavioral Healthcare Partners, Inc. v. Gonzalez-Rivera

392 F. Supp. 2d 191 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Sep 28, 2005

As for the qualified immunity defense, plaintiffs assert that it is unavailable here because the alleged violations injured clearly-established constitutional rights. II. … Qualified Immunity Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, public officials “generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly-established statutory or constitutional

Mantz v. Chain

239 F. Supp. 2d 486 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Dec 30, 2002

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY FROM LIABILITY UNDER 42 U.S.C. § 1983 In moving for summary judgment of Mantz’s civil rights claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 , Defendants invoke the doctrine of qualified immunity. … In determining whether a police officer is entitled to qualified immunity, both the existence of a clearly established right and the objective reasonableness of the officer’s actions are questions of law for the Court to

Hinkley v. Baker

122 F. Supp. 2d 48 · District Court, D. Maine · Nov 21, 2000

“Hence, state officials exercising discretionary authority are entitled to qualified immunity insofar as their conduct does not transgress clearly established constitutional or federal statutory rights of which a reasonably … In discussing qualified immunity regarding abuse that occurred from 1980 to 1985, the Stoneking court noted that It may seem ludicrous to be obliged to consider whether it was “clearly established” that it was impermissible

Finch ex rel. Moe v. New York State Office of Children & Family Services

499 F. Supp. 2d 521 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jul 3, 2007

Qualified Immunity The doctrine of qualified immunity shields government officials from civil liability as long as “ ‘their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … However, if a constitutional violation is proven, “the next ... step is to ask whether the right was clearly established.” 98 Qualified immunity applies unless the official’s conduct violated a clearly established constitutional

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.

Open Inns, Ltd. v. Chester County Sheriff's Department

24 F. Supp. 2d 410 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 20, 1998

Felsing, 128 F.3d 810, 826-28 (3d Cir.1997) (holding that in deciding whether officers are entitled to qualified immunity, it is not only the evidence of “clearly established law” that is for the court, but also whether a … Where a defendant asserts a qualified immunity defense in a motion for summary judgment, the plaintiff bears the initial burden of showing that the defendant’s conduct violated some clearly-established constitutional or statutory

I.H. v. Cumberland Valley School District

842 F. Supp. 2d 762 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 8, 2012

to qualified immunity. … qualified immunity.

Faghri v. University of Connecticut

608 F. Supp. 2d 269 · District Court, D. Connecticut · Mar 20, 2009

The defendants’ final ground for summary judgment is that Austin and Nicholls are entitled to qualified immunity. … “[Qualified immunity ... shields a government official acting in an official capacity from suit for damages under § 1983 unless the official violated clearly established rights of which an objectively reasonable official

C.N. v. Wolf

410 F. Supp. 2d 894 · District Court, C.D. California · Nov 28, 2005

However, the doctrine of qualified immunity protects “government officials performing discretionary functions ... from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or … Hence the Complaint alleges discriminatory treatment regarding a clearly established constitutional right, and Wolf is not entitled to qualified immunity. B.

Sabo v. O'BANNON

586 F. Supp. 1132 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 29, 1984

In their motions for summary judgments, defendants contend that they are entitled to qualified immunity since their conduct did not violate any clearly established constitutional rights. See Harlow v. … If the law was not clearly established, the defendant should prevail on the basis of the qualified immunity defense unless the plaintiff claims that the official actually knew that he was violating the law.

Jackson-El v. Winsor

986 F. Supp. 440 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Nov 18, 1997

[W]hen a defendant moves for summary judgment based on qualified immunity, a plaintiff must effectively pass two hurdles. First, the allegations must state a claim of the violation of clearly established law. … Defendants next argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity on the retaliation claim because the standard for analyzing retaliation claims was not clearly established at the time of the January 30 incident.

Decotiis v. Whittemore

680 F. Supp. 2d 263 · District Court, D. Maine · Jan 28, 2010

However, in the interest of completeness, the Court will also address the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis' — whether, assuming that a constitutional violation occurred, such right was clearly established. … Accordingly, even if Plaintiffs Complaint stated a claim for First Amendment retaliation, Defendant Whittemore is entitled to qualified immunity because it was not clearly established that the First Amendment would be violated

Brin v. Kansas

101 F. Supp. 2d 1343 · District Court, D. Kansas · Jun 9, 2000

Qualified Immunity The individual defendants claim that they are entitled to qualified immunity on the plaintiffs § 1983 claims. … “Under the doctrine of 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

White v. United States of America

863 F. Supp. 2d 41 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 4, 2012

clearly established.” … Courts may grant qualified immunity “on the ground that a purported right was not ‘clearly-established’ by prior case law, without resolving the often more difficult question whether the purported right exists at all.

Robinson v. Keita

20 F. Supp. 3d 1140 · District Court, D. Colorado · Feb 20, 2014

“When a defendant asserts qualified immunity at summary judgment, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to show that: (1) the defendant violated a constitutional right and (2) the constitutional right was clearly established … are entitled to qualified immunity....”