Case law

Playboy Enterprises, Inc. v. Messe

746 F. Supp. 154 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 31, 1990

In the alternative, the defendants contend that they are immune from liability because the law was not clearly established. Finally, the defendants argue that special factors militate in favor of granting them immunity. … The defendants contend that they are entitled to qualified immunity.

Rogers v. City of Selma

178 F. Supp. 3d 1222 · District Court, S.D. Alabama · Apr 8, 2016

As the Supreme Court explained, qualified immunity protects government officials performing discretionary functions from civil trial and liability if their conduct violates no “clearly established statutory or constitutional … If, however, a constitutional violation occurred, the court must then determine whether the right was clearly established. Id. 1.

Van Loo v. Braun

940 F. Supp. 1390 · District Court, E.D. Wisconsin · Sep 5, 1996

The doctrine of 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 … In conclusion, the conduct of defendants Braun and Horzewski did not violate the Constitution or “clearly established law” and both defendants are dismissed from this lawsuit under the doctrine of qualified immunity.

Whitacre v. Davey

727 F. Supp. 636 · District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 30, 1988

Finally, even if an action were otherwise stated, Flynn’s dismissal motion was well taken in that her qualified immunity protects her in the present circumstances. 1 The Supreme Court has clearly held that government officials … Since Harlow , the Supreme Court has held [ujnless the plaintiff’s allegations state a claim of violation of clearly established law, a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal before the commencement

Parker v. Town of Swansea

310 F. Supp. 2d 356 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jan 28, 2004

Having answered the first prong of the qualified immunity inquiry in the affirmative, the next inquiry is whether the right was “clearly established” at the time of the shooting. 7 This court concludes that it was. 2. … The Right At Issue Was Clearly Established “The relevant, dispositive inquiry in determining whether a right is clearly established is whether it would be clear to a reasonable officer that his conduct was unlawful in the

Villescas v. Richardson

124 F. Supp. 2d 647 · District Court, D. Colorado · Nov 6, 2000

Juarez and Defendant DOE absolute immunity. ii. [4]Defendants have not raised the question of qualified immunity. Accordingly, because “qualified immunity is an affirmative defense,” Barney v. … Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, Government officials are shielded from liability if “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have

Eibel v. Melton

904 F. Supp. 2d 785 · District Court, M.D. Tennessee · Oct 23, 2012

Generally, the qualified immunity inquiry involves first determining whether a constitutional violation occurred, and, if so, a subsequent determination of whether the right infringed was clearly established. Saucier v. … Insofar as Defendants assert that they are entitled to qualified immunity on this claim, the same is denied because "[i]t has been clearly established in this circuit for some time that individuals have a right not to be

Williams v. City of Albany

738 F. Supp. 499 · District Court, M.D. Georgia · May 23, 1990

Those defendants argue that they are entitled to summary judgment because qualified immunity protects them from liability since the acts they are alleged to have committed did not violate clearly established statutory or … The Supreme Court’s test for the application of qualified immunity rests on whether the government official performing discretionary functions violated clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable

Reale v. Haskell

District Court, D. Connecticut · Mar 31, 2025

But Jacobson has not been overruled, nor does the per curiam 7 Because the facemask policy did not violate the First Amendment, the court need not undertake a qualified immunity analysis as to defendants Haskell … Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 236 (2009) (“The judges of the district courts and the courts of appeals should be permitted to exercise their sound discretion in deciding which of the two prongs of the qualified immunity analysis

Meekins v. CITY OF NEW YORK, NY

524 F. Supp. 2d 402 · District Court, S.D. New York · Nov 6, 2007

It asserts that he is a qualified individual within the meaning of title II of the ADA. 60 The City, along with the Commissioner of the Department of Transportation, is clearly a “public entity” within the meaning of title … The Second Circuit, evaluating the Special Vehicle Permit program in the context of a Privileges and Immunities Clause claim, explained: The limited number of on-street parking spaces justifies the regulatory scheme established

Robertson v. City of Beckley

963 F. Supp. 570 · District Court, S.D. West Virginia · May 7, 1997

Qualified immunity immunizes officers from 42 U.S.C. § 1983 liability arising from their official discretionary acts that do not “violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … Our Court of Appeals has formulated a three prong test to determine whether an officer’s conduct is immunized: (1) identify the right allegedly violated, (2) decide whether that right was clearly established at the time of

Coy Ex Rel. Coy v. Board of Education of the North Canton City Schools

205 F. Supp. 2d 791 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Apr 29, 2002

See Harlow, 457 U.S. at 818 , 102 S.Ct. 2727 (stating that qualified immunity shields state actors only “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … The defendants assert qualified immunity on the premise that the right they allegedly violated was not clearly established.

Langton v. Town of Chester

168 F. Supp. 3d 597 · District Court, S.D. New York · Mar 2, 2016

Qualified Immunity The Library Defendants assert that Mallon is entitled to qualified immunity on Plaintiffs procedural due process claim. (Library Reply at 9-10.) … “It is well-established that defendants are shielded by qualified immunity as long as their conduct ’does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’

Hennick v. Bowling

115 F. Supp. 2d 1204 · District Court, W.D. Washington · Sep 14, 2000

Where a § 1983 defendant has claimed qualified immunity from civil damages, plaintiff is required to show that the official has violated “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … Qualified immunity is unavailable where, as here, the action violates an accused’s clearly established constitutional rights, and no reasonably competent police officer could believe otherwise. Anderson v.

Knoeffler v. Town of Mamakating

87 F. Supp. 2d 322 · District Court, S.D. New York · Mar 15, 2000

Defendants did not assert the qualified immunity defense in their answer to the supplemental complaint. Qualified immunity is a defense that must be pleaded. See Gomez v. … The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials from liability for civil damages if the challenged action “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person

Baughman v. Garcia

254 F. Supp. 3d 848 · District Court, S.D. Texas · May 26, 2017

A plaintiff seeking to overcome qualified immunity must satisfy a two-prong inquiry by showing: “(1) that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was ‘clearly established’ at the … For purposes of qualified immunity, “[a] clearly established right is one that is sufficiently clear that every reasonable official would have understood that what he is doing violates that right.” Mullenix v.

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.

Alberti v. University of Puerto Rico

818 F. Supp. 2d 452 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Oct 13, 2011

are entitled to qualified immunity. … The doctrine of qualified immunity serves critical important purposes.

Cooper v. Rogers

968 F. Supp. 2d 1121 · District Court, M.D. Alabama · Sep 4, 2013

not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … Thus, the Court elects to revisit its qualified immunity analysis. .

Rivera v. Medina

963 F. Supp. 78 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Apr 29, 1997

Qualified Immunity As a final basis for his motion to dismiss, codefendant Toledo Davila argues that he is entitled to qualified immunity. … Qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions from civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitution rights of which a reasonable person