Case law

Butler Ex Rel. Butler v. Rio Rancho Public School Board of Education

245 F. Supp. 2d 1188 · District Court, D. New Mexico · Jul 16, 2002

Qualified immunity is an affirmative defense designed to shield government officials who perform discretionary functions from individual liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 unless their conduct violates clearly established statutory … “If no constitutional right would have been violated were the allegations established, there is no necessity for further inquiries concerning qualified immunity.” Saucier v.

Armstrong v. Mille Lacs County Sheriffs Department

228 F. Supp. 2d 972 · District Court, D. Minnesota · Aug 23, 2002

In order “[t]o withstand a claim of qualified immunity at the summary judgment stage, a plaintiff must assert a violation of constitutional or statutory right; that right must have been clearly established at the time of … Thereafter, if we must reach the issue of qualified immunity, it is clear that the right to be arrested, only upon a showing of probable cause, was clearly established at the time of the incident at issue.

Johnson v. District of Columbia

445 F. Supp. 2d 1 · District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 10, 2006

Saucier, 533 U.S. at 201, 121 S.Ct. 2151 (“If no constitutional right would have been violated were the allegations established, there is no necessity for further inquiries concerning qualified immunity.”). 2. … based on qualified immunity is proper.

Seattle Pacific University v. Haas

626 F. Supp. 539 · District Court, W.D. Washington · Oct 7, 1985

Since qualified immunity is an affirmative defense, plaintiffs argue, the court cannot consider possible qualified immunity on a motion for leave to amend a complaint. … by reference to clearly established law.

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

Weeks v. Hodges

871 F. Supp. 2d 811 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · May 10, 2012

Qualified Immunity Summary judgment may still be appropriate for the individual defendants if they are entitled to qualified immunity. … The qualified immunity analysis cannot be disentangled from those disputed facts, and therefore, the defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity at this stage of the litigation. 8 IV.

Csizmadia v. Fauver

746 F. Supp. 483 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Sep 17, 1990

Whether the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity regarding the Allen plaintiffs’ claims depends on whether the Allen plaintiffs had a clearly established privacy or free exercise right in not being viewed naked or … As the above cases indicate, there is no clearly established method for balancing these competing interests, and certainly no clearly dictated result.

Tate v. Lau

865 F. Supp. 681 · District Court, D. Nevada · Oct 11, 1994

Qualified immunity is available to government officials if they could have reasonably believed their acts were lawful in light of clearly established law and the information they possessed. Kennedy v. … The Supreme Court explains qualified immunity in the following manner: Unless the plaintiff’s allegations state a claim of violation of clearly established law, a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal

Richardson v. Mason

956 F. Supp. 2d 1372 · District Court, M.D. Georgia · Jul 1, 2013

Qualified Immunity and Judgment as a Matter of Law Qualified immunity protects officers acting within the scope of their discretionary authority from liability as long as they did not violate “clearly established” law. … Therefore, Mason is clearly entitled to qualified immunity regarding his decision to search the areas that were searched.

Havard v. Puntuer

600 F. Supp. 2d 845 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Jan 22, 2009

Does Qualified Immunity Protect Defendants’ Conduct Because Chelsie Barker’s Rights Were Not Clearly Established At The Time Of The Alleged Wrongful Conduct ? … “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

Curry v. School Dist. of the City of Saginaw

452 F. Supp. 2d 723 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Sep 18, 2006

Qualified immunity is an affirmative defense that protects government actors performing discretionary functions from liability for civil damages when their conduct does “not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … In this case, the right to be free to speak on ideas and beliefs in a school setting is clearly established. But the qualified immunity defense requires the Court to look beyond the right in the abstract.

Warren v. State of Mo.

754 F. Supp. 150 · District Court, W.D. Missouri · Sep 26, 1990

established. … Deliberate indifference to a prisoner’s serious medical needs violates a clearly established constitutional right and defendants Armontrout and Bowers are not entitled to qualified immunity. Harlow v.

Hunt v. Smith

67 F. Supp. 2d 675 · District Court, E.D. Texas · Oct 13, 1999

However, although the Defendant would most likely be entitled to qualified immunity, 11 qualified immunity is not necessary to protect the Defendant. … One important difference, however, is that official immunity does not ineor- *683 porate the requirement that the plaintiff show the violation of a clearly established right.

HAMILTON BY HAMILTON v. Cannon

864 F. Supp. 1332 · District Court, M.D. Georgia · Sep 13, 1994

actions violated a clearly established constitutional right defined in Wideman he is not entitled to qualified immunity. *1337 Applying the test enumerated in Courson v. … Lacking a clearly established right the Courson test cannot be satisfied, and so Brown is entitled to qualified immunity. C.

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.

McMillan v. Wiley

813 F. Supp. 2d 1238 · District Court, D. Colorado · Sep 14, 2011

Qualified Immunity Defendants assert that they are entitled to qualified immunity to suit on Plaintiffs claims. … and qualified immunity is appropriate).

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.”

St. Louis v. Sands

401 F. Supp. 2d 1351 · District Court, S.D. Florida · Nov 8, 2005

Because nothing on the face of Plaintiffs Amended Complaint demonstrates that Defendant acted with racial animus to de *1360 prive Plaintiff of a clearly established § 1981 right, Defendant is entitled to qualified immunity … Plaintiff has thus failed to allege the violation of a clearly established constitutional right and Defendant is entitled to qualified immunity on Plaintiffs claim for the violation of his First amendment rights. 9 *1363

Bausch v. Sumiec

139 F. Supp. 2d 1029 · District Court, E.D. Wisconsin · Apr 10, 2001

Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, “governmental officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … Once a defendant has *1039 pleaded a defense of qualified immunity courts employ a two step- analysis: (1) does the alleged conduct set out a constitutional violation, and (2) were the constitutional standards clearly established

L.B. v. Town of Chester

232 F. Supp. 2d 227 · District Court, S.D. New York · Nov 19, 2002

Brock, Conde and Medican Are Not Entitled to Qualified Immunity. … If so, it must be determined whether that right was clearly established. Id. at 202, 121 S.Ct. 2151 .