Case law

Davis v. Lester

156 F. Supp. 2d 588 · District Court, W.D. Virginia · Jul 26, 2001

“Clearly established” for purposes of qualified immunity means that “[t]he contours of the right must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that right. … However, no such express rule is necessary to deny qualified immunity. Id. The standards in McMillian, Norman, and Benjamin were clearly established at the time of the alleged violations.

Ivery v. Baldauf

284 F. Supp. 3d 426 · District Court, W.D. New York · Feb 14, 2018

Qualified Immunity Defendants Baldauf and Harris also move for summary judgment on the ground that they are entitled to qualified immunity. … Qualified immunity shields public officials from an action for civil damages, to the extent that their challenged acts do not violate "clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would

Nolan v. Krajcik

384 F. Supp. 2d 447 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jul 12, 2005

Qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions from liability for civil damages when “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … Instead, the court determined that the defendant police officers were shielded by qualified immunity because no such constitutional right was clearly established until the Supreme Court decided Wilson v.

Connolly v. Beckett

863 F. Supp. 1379 · District Court, D. Colorado · Mar 23, 1994

A § 1983 defendant enjoys qualified immunity unless he violated “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. … Once a defendant asserts qualified immunity, a plaintiff must “come forward with facts or allegations sufficient to show both that the defendant’s alleged conduct violated the law and that the law was clearly established

Thomas v. Devries

834 F. Supp. 398 · District Court, M.D. Georgia · Oct 19, 1993

Suits against state employees in their individual capacities may be subject to qualified or good faith immunity, and such defendants are shielded from liability insofar as their conduct does not violate “ ‘clearly established … Busby also preserves qualified immunity when there is no violation of a clearly defined property interests associated with substantive due process, and in the present ease there is no clearly defined property interest that

Hardy v. District of Columbia

District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 6, 2009

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY “The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials ‘from [personal] liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … right,” and “whether that right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violations.”

Green v. City of Welch

822 F. Supp. 1236 · District Court, S.D. West Virginia · Jun 3, 1993

The Defense of Qualified Immunity Police officers are entitled to summary judgment on the ground of qualified immunity in civil rights cases if they can establish that reasonable officers could have believed that their actions … were lawful in light of both clearly established law and information the officers possessed at the time of the acts in question.

Dorsey v. District of Columbia

234 F. Supp. 3d 1 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 11, 2017

“Although government officials may be sued in their individual capacities for damages . . . qualified immunity protects officials from liability ‘insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or … As to the Defendant Officers, “the protection of qualified immunity is available if “a reasonable officer could have believed that [his actions] were lawful, in light of clearly established law and the information the officers

Petersen v. Midgett

140 F. Supp. 3d 490 · District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Sep 25, 2015

Qualified immunity provides that “government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or … legal rules that were clearly established at the time it was taken.”

Long v. City and County of Honolulu

378 F. Supp. 2d 1241 · District Court, D. Hawaii · Jul 11, 2005

If the answer is no, there is qualified immunity. If the answer is yes, the court then asks whether the right was “clearly established.” Id. at 201-02, 121 S.Ct. 2151 . … See, e.g., Blanford, 406 F.3d at 1116 (finding qualified immunity where deadly force was used to stop suspect appearing to threaten others with a sword); Billing - ton, 292 F.3d at 1184-85 (finding qualified immunity where

Jones v. Carroll

628 F. Supp. 2d 551 · District Court, D. Delaware · Jun 24, 2009

“Qualified immunity shields state officials from suit where their conduct ‘does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have *561 known.’ ” Id. … If the court concludes that defendant’s conduct violated a clearly established constitutional or statutory right, then it must deny defendant the protection afforded by qualified immunity. Id. at 190.

Chambliss v. Buckner

804 F. Supp. 2d 1240 · District Court, M.D. Alabama · Mar 29, 2011

However, even if the evidence demonstrated a violation of § 407(a), for qualified immunity purposes, it was not clearly established at the time Mr. … Chambliss fails to show that any Defendant violated § 407(a) or, alternatively, that any violation involves a clearly established federal statutory right. Defendants are, therefore, entitled to qualified immunity on Mr.

McCormick v. Edwards

479 F. Supp. 295 · District Court, M.D. Louisiana · Sep 26, 1979

Rhodes, supra, the Supreme Court made reference to what it termed a “qualified immunity” available under certain circumstances to officers of the executive branch of government: “. . .a qualified immunity is available to … The principles contained in the cases cited in Elrod , dating as far back as 1943, clearly show the illegality of the acts with which the defendants herein are charged, and they clearly establish that those principles have

Ashiegbu v. Purviance

76 F. Supp. 2d 824 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Apr 16, 1998

This immunity protects these officials only “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would person would have known.” Harlow v. … As the Supreme Court noted, “[u]n-less the plaintiffs allegations state a claim of violation of clearly established law, a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal before the commencement of trial.”

Silverstein v. Federal Bureau of Prisons

704 F. Supp. 2d 1077 · District Court, D. Colorado · Mar 23, 2010

case law to clearly establish the violation.” … I now turn to the second qualified-immunity prong, namely, whether the law at issue here was clearly established at the time defendants allegedly violated it.

Byrnes v. City of Manchester

848 F. Supp. 2d 146 · District Court, D. New Hampshire · Jan 31, 2012

Qualified Immunity Sullivan and Macken are protected by qualified immunity if the existence of probable cause to believe Manders engaged in disorderly conduct was “at least arguable.” Prokey v. … It was also not clearly established, as a matter of federal law, that a vehicle stop, based upon a belief that Manders’s taunt qualified as disorderly conduct under applicable state law, would clearly violate Byrnes’s Fourth

Cortes v. Johnson

114 F. Supp. 2d 182 · District Court, W.D. New York · Sep 18, 2000

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).

Hunter v. S.D. Dept. of Soc. Servs.

377 F. Supp. 3d 964 · United States District Court · Mar 25, 2019

s Fourth Amendment claim. ii) Step Two: Clearly Established Right Even if A.Q. was deprived of a constitutional right, Defendants can claim the protection of qualified immunity if that right was not "clearly established." … Qualified immunity does not require there be a case directly on point before concluding that the law is clearly established, "but existing precedent must have placed the statutory or constitutional question beyond debate.

Beaulah v. Muscogee County Sheriff's Deputies

447 F. Supp. 2d 1342 · District Court, M.D. Georgia · Aug 31, 2006

Qualified immunity shields public officers acting within the scope of their discretionary authority from liability so long as their acts do not violate clearly established law. See Hope v. … The Court finds, however, that the tactical deployment did not violate law that was clearly established at the time of the stop and that Ellerbee is entitled to qualified immunity for the part he played in it.

Lingenfelter v. Board of County Commissioners of Reno County

359 F. Supp. 2d 1163 · District Court, D. Kansas · Mar 14, 2005

Even if the allegations show a violation of plaintiffs Fourth Amendment rights, defendants argue that Sheriff Henderson is protected by qualified immunity because there was no clearly established law putting him on notice … Qualified Immunity.