Case law

AGI-Bluff Manor, Inc. v. Reagen

713 F. Supp. 1535 · District Court, W.D. Missouri · Apr 18, 1989

The Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. State executive officials who perform discretionary functions are entitled to qualified immunity from § 1983 suits. Scheuer v. … Because any violation could not have been apparent, Birkenholz’s due process right was not ‘clearly established’ for qualified immunity purposes.” 857 F.2d at 1218 .

Norris v. Moroney

District Court, D. Massachusetts · Aug 17, 2023

Defendants assert further that even if Norris states a plausible claim to relief, they are entitled to qualified immunity because they did not violate clearly established law. Mot. to Dismiss Mem. 44 [Doc. … See Stock, 2021 WL 5016140 at *7 (holding that defendants were entitled to qualified immunity where the scope of Packingham was not clearly established as it applied to conditions of supervised release).

Rubacha Ex Rel. Rubacha v. Coler

607 F. Supp. 477 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Apr 15, 1985

Qualified Immunity As an additional ground for dismissal, defendants argue they are shielded by qualified executive immunity. They cite Davis v. … . -, 104 S.Ct. 3012, 3021 , 82 L.Ed.2d 139 (1984) for the proposition that damages may not be recovered from an official with qualified immunity unless the right the official allegedly violated was “clearly established at

Dineen Ex Rel. Dineen v. Stramka

228 F. Supp. 2d 447 · District Court, S.D. New York · Oct 30, 2002

Qualified Immunity As a general rule, law enforcement officers are entitled to qualified immunity if (1) their conduct does not violate clearly established constitutional rights, or (2) it was objectively reasonable for them … There can be no dispute that freedom from the use of excessive force is a clearly established constitutional right.

O'Donnell v. Cumberland County

195 F. Supp. 3d 724 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 18, 2016

“Qualified immunity shields government officials from civil damages liability unless the official violated a statutory or constitutional right that was clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct.” … Thus, only where a plaintiff “fails to state a claim of a violation of a clearly established law, [is] a defendant pleading qualified immunity ... entitled to dismissal .before the commencement of discovery.” Id.

Rouse v. Bolden

36 F. Supp. 2d 204 · District Court, S.D. New York · Mar 1, 1999

In our circuit, “[a] qualified immunity defense is established if (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 … immunity.

Fennell v. Marion Independent School District

963 F. Supp. 2d 623 · District Court, W.D. Texas · Aug 2, 2013

While Plaintiffs have pleaded facts supporting a constitutional violation, Davis would still be entitled to qualified immunity if he acted reasonably “in light of clearly established law at the time of the violation.” … Because Plaintiffs’ allegations, if true, would establish that Manley violated a clearly established constitutional right, Manley is not entitled to qualified immunity — and Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss is denied — as to

Mannington Mills, Inc. v. Shinn

877 F. Supp. 921 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Feb 28, 1995

and defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. … Because defendants’ actions in this case, even if taken in bad faith, did not violate plaintiff’s clearly established constitutional rights, defendants are entitled to qualified immunity.

Iglesias v. Wolford

667 F. Supp. 2d 573 · District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Sep 28, 2009

Qualified immunity is “ ‘an immunity from suit rather than a mere defense to liability; and like an absolute immunity, it is effectively lost if a case is erroneously permitted to go to trial.’ ” Pearson, 129 S.Ct. at 815 … In most cases, the qualified immunity analysis does not require factual findings, because the inquiry is a “purely legal one: whether the facts alleged ... support a claim of violation of clearly established law.”

Congine v. Village of Crivitz

947 F. Supp. 2d 963 · District Court, E.D. Wisconsin · May 28, 2013

doctrine of qualified immunity. … “Immunity protects public employees who make reasonable errors in applying even clearly established law.” Vinning-El v. Evans, 657 F.3d at 594 .

Turner v. Boyle

116 F. Supp. 3d 58 · District Court, D. Connecticut · Jul 15, 2015

Government officials “enjoy qualified immunity when they perform discretionary functions if either (1) their conduct did not violate clearly established rights of which a reasonable person would have known, or (2) it was … objectively reasonable to believe that [their] acts did not violate these clearly established rights.”

Koller v. Harris

312 F. Supp. 3d 814 · District Court, N.D. California · Apr 20, 2018

Qualified Immunity i. … For a constitutional right to be clearly established under the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis, "its contours must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates

Pinkney v. Davis

952 F. Supp. 1561 · District Court, M.D. Alabama · Jan 15, 1997

In addition, a supervisor sued in his individual capacity is entitled to qualified immunity unless a reasonable supervisor would have known that his or her actions were unlawful in light of clearly established law and the … Under the law of this circuit, a district court cannot "clearly establish” the law for qualified immunity purposes. See Muhammad v. Wainwright, 839 F.2d 1422, 1425 (11th Cir.1985).

Hawatmeh v. City of Henderson

District Court, D. Nevada · Sep 18, 2024

They also argue that even if Joseph was seized, the law was not clearly 9 established, so the officers are entitled to qualified immunity. 10 This case implicates various threads of Fourth Amendment case law … established for qualified immunity purposes); Rodriguez v.

Briscoe v. Jackson

2 F. Supp. 3d 635 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 24, 2014

Qualified Immunity&emdash;Officers Jackson and Carr Government officials are extended qualified immunity in actions brought under section 1983 “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … legal rules that were ‘clearly established’ at the time it was taken.”

Hatori v. Haga

751 F. Supp. 1401 · District Court, D. Hawaii · Nov 17, 1989

capacities, they are protected by qualified immunity because there existed at the time of their actions no clearly established law holding their conduct unlawful. … Qualified immunity, moreover, is properly considered pursuant to a motion for summary judgment.

Irvin v. City of Shaker Heights

809 F. Supp. 2d 719 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Aug 18, 2011

Qualified immunity protects an official from liability if the official’s conduct does not violate “clearly established” statutory or constitutional rights that a reasonable person would have known were in existence. … The court therefore finds that qualified immunity is not appropriate because Irvin’s account supports a finding that the backup officers violated a clearly established constitutional right to be free from gratuitous beating

McDade v. City of Chicago

264 F. Supp. 2d 730 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · May 30, 2003

Police officers enjoy qualified immunity from suit as long as their conduct does not violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. … Qualified immunity is an affirmative defense that must be pleaded, Lanigan, 110 F.3d at 471 ; the defendants did so in their answer.

Brickyard Holdings, Inc. v. Beaufort County

586 F. Supp. 2d 409 · District Court, D. South Carolina · Dec 27, 2007

“Absent clearly established law that proscribed [an official’s] specific conduct, [the official] should not be subjected to suit. … Similarly, Austin is also entitled to qualified immunity on the issue of whether she forced Plaintiff to renew its letter of credit.

Harris v. County of Nassau

581 F. Supp. 2d 351 · District Court, E.D. New York · Sep 29, 2008

Qualified Immunity In addition to arguing that probable cause bars the false arrest and false imprisonment claims, the arresting officers argue that the claims against them are barred by qualified immunity. … Qualified immunity bars an action against a government official where the conduct alleged “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”