Case law

City of Grand Rapids v. Grand Rapids Police Command Officers Ass'n

346 F. Supp. 3d 1061 · District Court, W.D. Michigan · Jun 12, 2018

Finally, Third-Party Defendants Rahinsky, Savage, Kiddle, McWaters, Schnurstein and Getting are entitled to qualified immunity because Janiskee has not established that his rights were clearly established at the time such … Because Janiskee has not met his burden to show that the law was clearly established, disputes of material fact whether the right was violated do not preclude summary judgment on qualified immunity.

Seitz v. DeQuarto

777 F. Supp. 2d 492 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jan 6, 2011

Qualified Immunity The Supreme Court has established that the state’s sovereign immunity under the Eleventh Amendment extends to individuals acting in their roles as agents of the government. … Individual state employees may claim qualified immunity “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v.

Johnson v. Dekalb Cnty.

391 F. Supp. 3d 1224 · District Court, N.D. Georgia · Jun 7, 2019

Johnson's favor. 100 The second qualified immunity inquiry asks whether the constitutional violation was clearly established. … Johnson's clearly-established constitutional rights, and he consequently is not entitled to qualified immunity. 209 Ms.

Michaels v. City of Vermillion

539 F. Supp. 2d 975 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Feb 22, 2008

He is nonetheless entitled to qualified immunity if this particular right is not ‘clearly established.’ … Manigold, the Sixth Circuit denied qualified immunity, holding that a jury could find that the officer's use of a taser violated the suspect’s “clearly established Fourth Amendment right.”

Hernandez v. Goord

312 F. Supp. 2d 537 · District Court, S.D. New York · Mar 31, 2004

Defendants are Not Entitled to Qualified Immunity Defendants also urge that they are immune from suit pursuant to the doctrine of qualified immunity. … “A government actor performing a discretionary task is entitled to qualified immunity from § 1983 suits if either: (a) the defendant’s action did not violate clearly established law, or (b) it was objectively reasonable for

Klaassen v. University of Kansas School of Medicine

84 F. Supp. 3d 1228 · District Court, D. Kansas · Feb 3, 2015

Qualified immunity shields federal and state officials from money damages unless a plaintiff establishes (1) that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right and (2) that right was “clearly established” at the … Whether plaintiff has alleged a violation of his clearly established constitutional rights to overcome the Individual Defendants’ qualified immunity defense is an issue of law. Brown v.

Zamora v. City of Belen

229 F.R.D. 225 · District Court, D. New Mexico · Apr 4, 2005

Losavio, 847 F.2d 642, 645-46 (10th Cir. 1988)(“The plaintiff carries the burden of convincing the court that the law was clearly established.”). … If the Court grants the motion, the Court’s judgment would establish Valdez’ absolute immunity and/or qualified immunity from suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 .

Nemeckay v. Rule

894 F. Supp. 310 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Jul 31, 1995

action is a violation) violates a clearly established right. … Here, an analysis of the law and the circumstances clearly operate in favor of qualified immunity. Under existing law, excessive force does not generally manifest itself in the form on a nonfeasance or negligence.

Strauch v. Demskie

892 F. Supp. 503 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jun 28, 1995

Qualified Immunity 1. … Qualified immunity is necessary to enable government officials to act without fear of later being held personally liable for violating a right that was not clearly established.

Yorzinski v. Alves

477 F. Supp. 2d 461 · District Court, D. Connecticut · Feb 16, 2007

to the warrant requirement, they are entitled to qualified immunity for their actions -as the law regarding protective sweeps was not clearly established at the time of the search, July 2000, and that, in any event, *469 … Mar. 7, 2006) (rejecting defendants' qualified immunity argument on ground that "there is no Connecticut precedent establishing the same qualified immunity defense available under § 1983 for Connecticut constitutional violations

Rupe v. Cate

688 F. Supp. 2d 1035 · District Court, E.D. California · Feb 1, 2010

Qualified Immunity Defendants claim that they are entitled to qualified immunity and so Plaintiffs’ constitutional claims should be dismissed. … Because the Complaint does not clearly show that Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity, the Court will not entertain that defense now, but Defendants may renew it on any motion for summary judgment. III.

Polk v. District of Columbia

121 F. Supp. 2d 56 · District Court, District of Columbia · Oct 26, 2000

When the defendant violates a clearly established right of which a reasonable person should have known, he is not entitled to qualified immunity. … Valdes nevertheless may be entitled to qualified immunity if the right he allegedly violated was not “clearly established” at the time the violation occurred.

Duluth News-Tribune v. Medure

808 F. Supp. 671 · District Court, D. Minnesota · Aug 13, 1992

Qualified Immunity Government officials are shielded from liability under § 1983 in the performance of discretionary functions “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights … For qualified immunity purposes, “clearly established” law means “[t]he contours of the right [in question] must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that right.

Leach v. Clay

District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 23, 2025

An officer is entitled to qualified immunity “unless (1) they violated a federal statutory or constitutional right, and (2) the unlawfulness of their conduct was ‘clearly established at the time.’” … The court thus cannot say that binding precedent at the time clearly established that Officer Whitehead acted unlawfully.

Davis v. District of Columbia

District Court, District of Columbia · May 31, 2016

In addition, as set forth above, such law is clearly established. Afari is thus not now protected by qualified immunity on Count I either. C. … Ward, 125 F.3d 1341, 1351 (10th Cir. 1997) (Fourth Amendment rule against unnecessary damage during search is clearly established for purposes of qualified immunity).

Kyle v. Bedlion

177 F. Supp. 3d 380 · District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 1, 2016

violated a clearly established right[.]” Muhammad, 881 F. Supp. 2d at 122. Therefore, Bedlion is entitled to qualified immunity on Kyle’s excessive force claim. B. … immunity on a false-arrest claim). 8 Kyle’s brief in opposition to Defendants’ qualified -immunity motion does not establish otherwise.

Brown v. City of Clewiston

644 F. Supp. 1417 · District Court, S.D. Florida · Sep 22, 1986

Summary Judgment Standard and Qualified Immunity In order to prevail on the qualified immunity defense (described, infra), PEREZ must show that there exists no genuine issue of material fact and that he is entitled to judgment … Stated succinctly, an officer was only entitled to qualified immunity if he established his reasonable, good faith belief that his actions were lawful and within the scope of his authority. See, e.g.. Barker v.

Williams v. Department of Veteran Affairs

879 F. Supp. 578 · District Court, E.D. Virginia · Mar 29, 1995

There, the Supreme Court held that government actors protected by qualified immunity are immune from suit if their conduct does not violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … established” as to preclude the individual defendants from claiming qualified immunity for the alleged actions.

Arrington v. Dickerson

915 F. Supp. 1503 · District Court, M.D. Alabama · Dec 7, 1995

Under the qualified immunity defense, the defendants are immune from liability if [the plaintiff’s] complaint fails to state a violation of a “clearly established statutory or constitutional right[] of which a reasonable … The purpose of qualified immunity is to shield government officials performing discretionary functions from civil trials and liability if their conduct does not violate " 'clearly established statutory or constitutional rights

Hill v. Selsky

487 F. Supp. 2d 340 · District Court, W.D. New York · May 7, 2007

To establish qualified immunity, a defendant must show “either ‘(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 … Oct. 20, 2006) (“an officer’s violation of clearly established state law is not enough to overcome qualified immunity in a § 1983 suit.