Case law

Estate of Rossiter Ex Rel. Rossiter v. Robinson

716 F. Supp. 2d 1018 · District Court, D. Colorado · Jun 8, 2010

The doctrine of qualified immunity shields public officials from damages ac *1023 tions unless their conduct was unreasonable in light of clearly established law. See Pearson v. … Excessive Force Claim “An officer using force in the course of a seizure of a citizen is entitled to qualified immunity unless the level of force violated clearly established Fourth Amendment law.” Thomson v.

Levin v. Madigan

41 F. Supp. 3d 701 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · May 5, 2014

Qualified immunity is designed to allow government officials to avoid the burdens of litigation when the law is not clearly established, and relieving officials of those burdens in turn confers a benefit on society as a whole … Although this Court previously expressed its doubt that the qualified immunity defense applies at all to procedural uncertainty, that is, uncertainty over whether a § 1983 cause of action for a clearly established substantive

Rowe v. Romano

940 F. Supp. 798 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 23, 1996

he is entitled to qualified immunity for the arrest. … Specifically, qualified immunity shields Rivera from Rowe’s false arrest claim if “a reasonable officer could have believed [Rowe’s arrest] to be lawful, in light of clearly established law and the information the [arresting

FARAGALLA v. JERSEY CITY

District Court, D. New Jersey · Sep 30, 2020

Qualified Immunity Otundo also argues that he is entitled to qualified immunity. … With respect to the second step of a qualified immunity analysis, this Court must “identify the right at issue and determine if that right was clearly established at the time of the officer’s action.” Estep v.

D.F. ex rel. Finkle v. Board of Education of Syosset Central School District

386 F. Supp. 2d 119 · District Court, E.D. New York · Sep 12, 2005

Qualified Immunity Defendants argue that even if their actions violated Plaintiffs Constitutional or State law rights, Defendants are protected from liability by qualified immunity. … The doctrine of qualified immunity shields school officials from liability for damages where “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known

Weaver ex rel. Weaver v. New York City Employees' Retirement System

717 F. Supp. 1039 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jul 21, 1989

Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 , 102 S.Ct. 2727 , 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982). .Qualified immunity shields officials from liability for damages “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … Certainly, defendants’ actions were not so arbitrary as to violate any clearly established constitutional right of which a reasonable person would have known.

Strittmatter v. Briscoe

504 F. Supp. 2d 169 · District Court, E.D. Texas · Jul 11, 2007

reference to clearly-established law. … Qualified immunity analysis is a two-step process: (1) the court must determine whether plaintiff alleges a violation of a clearly-established right and (2) if so, the court must decide whether the officials’ alleged conduct

Lopes v. Rogers

909 F. Supp. 737 · District Court, D. Hawaii · Nov 27, 1995

Defendants assert that there is no clearly established right at issue, and therefore, the public officials should be immune. Plaintiffs claims rest on the Defendants’ use of force in this case. … Defendants maintain that clearly established law in Johnson v.

Thomas v. Walton

461 F. Supp. 2d 786 · District Court, S.D. Illinois · Sep 19, 2006

In general, of course, a government officer is entitled to qualified immunity if a reasonable officer could have believed that his or her conduct was constitutional in light of the clearly established law and the information … All of the constitutional violations alleged by Thomas implicate clearly established constitutional rights, making summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity improper. *798 As discussed, Count 2, the remaining portion

Prall v. City of Boston

985 F. Supp. 2d 115 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Nov 18, 2013

L. c. 268 § 34 was not clearly established at the time of the Prall’s arrest. … The Supreme Court has “held that courts may grant qualified immunity on the ground that a purported right was not ‘clearly established’ by prior case law, without resolving the often more difficult question whether the purported

Jones v. Board of Supervisors of the University of Louisiana System

58 F. Supp. 3d 670 · District Court, W.D. Louisiana · Sep 30, 2014

Qualified Immunity for State Officials Randall Webb and Lisa Abney are entitled to qualified immunity from suit in their individual capacities. 2 “Qualified immunity protects public officers from suit if their conduct does … To defeat a defense of qualified immunity, the plaintiff must show “the officer violated a clearly established constitutional right [and that] the official’s conduct was objectively unreasonable under established law.”

Fleck v. Trustees of the University of Pennsylvania

995 F. Supp. 2d 390 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 5, 2014

The doctrine of qualified immunity protects governmental officials when they are sued in their personal capacity “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or … The contours of clearly established rights in the context of qualified immunity are not always sharply drawn.

Walker v. Benjamin

100 F. Supp. 2d 901 · District Court, C.D. Illinois · Jun 8, 2000

A public official is entitled to qualified immunity if his conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known”. … Benjamin’s conduct violated clearly established constitutional or statutory rights and she is entitled to qualified immunity. Harlow, 457 U.S. at 818 , 102 S.Ct. 2727 .

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.

Schaefer v. Wilcock

676 F. Supp. 1092 · District Court, D. Utah · Dec 29, 1987

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY Defendants finally argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity as a matter of law, and that plaintiffs’ suits are therefore entirely barred. … action is a violation) violates a clearly established 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.

Ford v. Mitchell

890 F. Supp. 2d 24 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 10, 2012

“Generally, when a plaintiff sues a governement agent in his individual capacity and the government agent raises a qualified immunity defense, the plaintiff must overcome the qualified immunity defense in order to survive … Qualified immunity protects government officials “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have

Dominguez v. Sancha

50 F. Supp. 3d 117 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Sep 30, 2014

A qualified immunity analysis consists of two prongs: (1) whether the facts as alleged by plaintiff establish a violation of a constitutional right, and (2) whether that right was clearly established given the state of the … on qualified immunity.”

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.

Jones v. Beatty

4 F. Supp. 2d 737 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Apr 30, 1998

The next step in a qualified immunity analysis is to determine whether the alleged violation involved a clearly established constitutional right of which a reasonable person would have known. … The right to be free from unreasonable seizures, and to be free from the use of excessive force, is clearly established under the Fourth Amendment for purposes of a claim of qualified immunity. 4 Therefore, the next inquiry