Case law

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.

Robinson v. Cnty. of Shasta

384 F. Supp. 3d 1137 · District Court, E.D. California · May 1, 2019

Turning to the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis, the court notes that clearly established law must be defined with a "high 'degree of specificity.' " District of Columbia v. Wesby , --- U.S. ----, 138 S. … Ultimately, because no controlling authority had yet clearly established as unconstitutional the use of a taser in dart mode, as used by the officer, the officer was entitled to qualified immunity. Id. at 833.

Blake v. Berman

598 F. Supp. 1081 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Dec 11, 1984

Defendants also contend that plaintiff’s claim for damages is foreclosed by defendants’ qualified immunity. … right was not clearly established at the time of plaintiff’s transfer to Leavenworth seems dubious at best.

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

Estate of Olivas Ex Rel. Miranda v. City & County of Denver

929 F. Supp. 1329 · District Court, D. Colorado · May 22, 1996

To reach the issue of qualified immunity, the Supreme Court in Siegert v. … Guzman and Collier are entitled to qualified immunity. 9 .

Ballas v. City of Reading

153 F. Supp. 2d 691 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 12, 2001

Qualified Immunity Defendant Pena reasserts qualified immunity to Count II on the basis that the evidence fails to establish a knowing violation of the law or that his actions were objectively unreasonable. … clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”

DeVatt v. Lohenitz

338 F. Supp. 2d 588 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 1, 2004

DISCUSSION Standard for Qualified Immunity The standard for qualified immunity is uniform regardless of “the precise nature of various officials’ duties or the precise character of the particular rights alleged to have been … If qualified immunity is to be defeated, plaintiff must satisfy a two-prong test. Initially, he must establish that the government official violated a “basic, unquestioned constitutional right” belonging to plaintiff.

Muhammad v. Skinner

193 F. Supp. 3d 821 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Jun 24, 2016

The doctrine of qualified immunity generally protects “government officials performing discretionary functions ... from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or … A government official is entitled to qualified immunity “unless a plaintiff *830 pleads facts showing: “(1) that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right and (2) that the right was ‘clearly established’ at

Opala v. Watt

393 F. Supp. 2d 1154 · District Court, W.D. Oklahoma · May 20, 2005

and qualified immunity. … The Court will next address whether Defendants are immune from suit due to absolute or qualified immunity.

Seneway v. Canon McMillan School District

969 F. Supp. 325 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 10, 1997

Qualified immunity entitles governmental officials performing discretionary functions to immunity when their conduct does “not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would … Consistent with this established law, Plaintiffs allegations in this case rise to the level of violations of clearly established constitutional rights.

Tapia v. City of Albuquerque

10 F. Supp. 3d 1323 · District Court, D. New Mexico · Mar 31, 2014

established prong of the qualified immunity analysis. … Clearly Established Rights in the Qualified Immunity Analysis.

Maybee v. Town of Newfield

789 F. Supp. 86 · District Court, N.D. New York · Apr 6, 1992

In order for a government official performing a discretionary function to be entitled to qualified immunity, his conduct must not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … in light of the legal rules that were ‘clearly established’ at the time it was taken.”

Summerchase Ltd. Partnership I v. City of Gonzales

970 F. Supp. 522 · District Court, M.D. Louisiana · Jun 17, 1997

The Court will now turn to the defense of qualified immunity- (III)(B) Qualified Immunity Defendants claim the Board of Aldermen are protected from suit by qualified immunity. … “Government officials performing discretionary functions are entitled to qualified immunity from suit unless their conduct violated clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would

In Re State Police Litigation

888 F. Supp. 1235 · District Court, D. Connecticut · May 16, 1995

Federal qualified immunity requires defendants to demonstrate that their actions did not violate “clearly established” rights, or that their actions were objectively reasonable. … Qualified Immunity Defendants argue that the Title III rights asserted by plaintiffs were not clearly established at the time defendants acted.

Blissett v. Eisensmidt

940 F. Supp. 449 · District Court, N.D. New York · Sep 18, 1996

The defendants in Blissett I raised only a general immunity defense in their amended answer; during the five year course of pre-trial litigation, they never addressed the qualified immunity defense; they did not seek to establish … And even though, eventually, she did give very cursory treatment to this defense in her pre-trial memorandum, she did not seek to establish a qualified immunity defense during the trial.

A.D. ex rel. McGhee v. Alabama Department of Human Resources

995 F. Supp. 2d 1253 · District Court, N.D. Alabama · Jan 31, 2014

violations of clearly established law. … , that right was clearly established.

O'CALLAGHAN v. District of Columbia

741 F. Supp. 273 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 22, 1990

Nevertheless, because their conduct resulted in the violation of “clearly established ... constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known,” they are not entitled to qualified immunity. Harlow v. … Accordingly, their qualified immunity defense must fail.

Canell v. Oregon Department of Justice

811 F. Supp. 546 · District Court, D. Oregon · Jan 11, 1993

Nor is a defendant who is entitled to qualified immunity for alleged constitutional violations stripped of that immunity merely because his conduct violates clearly settled state law. Davis v. … Qualified Immunity: Defendants may still escape liability for damages if they satisfy the test for qualified immunity.

Baggett v. Ashe

41 F. Supp. 3d 113 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Aug 26, 2014

not be shielded by qualified immunity. … Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity protects officials performing discretionary functions when their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable officer should have

Tonjes v. Park Cnty. Sheriff's Office

300 F. Supp. 3d 1308 · District Court, D. Colorado · Jan 4, 2018

Defendants Wegener and Hancock's Assertion of Qualified Immunity "The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established … Adams , 327 F.3d 1171 , 1174 (10th Cir. 2003) (once a defendant asserts qualified immunity, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to show the defendant violated a constitutional or statutory right that was clearly established