Case law

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

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).

Radecki v. Barela

945 F. Supp. 226 · District Court, D. New Mexico · Nov 15, 1996

legal rules that were ‘clearly established’ at the time it was taken.” … For the reasons set forth above, Defendants’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment based on qualified immunity (Docket No. 27) shall be denied. Defendants are not entitled to the defense of qualified immunity.

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.

Sanchez v. Hartley

65 F. Supp. 3d 1111 · District Court, D. Colorado · Aug 20, 2014

Qualified Immunity The Individual Defendants assert qualified immunity against Plaintiffs claim. … Clearly Established Because Defendants have asserted qualified immunity, Plaintiffs are entitled to proceed in this action only if the constitutional violation alleged was clearly established at the time of relevant events

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

Storck v. Suffolk County Department of Social Services

62 F. Supp. 2d 927 · District Court, E.D. New York · Aug 11, 1999

Qualified immunity shields individuals from liability if their conduct did not violate clearly established constitutional rights and it was objectively reasonable for them to have believed that their conduct did not violate … Qualified immunity applies if it was objectively reasonable for the defendant to believe that her actions did not violate a clearly established federally protected right. Id.

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

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.

Matican v. City of New York

424 F. Supp. 2d 497 · District Court, E.D. New York · Mar 28, 2006

to qualified immunity. … Governmental actors are entitled to 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.

Edwards v. City of Martins Ferry

554 F. Supp. 2d 797 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Apr 14, 2008

to summary judgment on the issue of qualified immunity. … Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, government officials performing discretionary functions are immune from suit unless the plaintiff shows the official violated “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights

Gamboa v. Washington

716 F. Supp. 353 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jun 27, 1989

If those undisputed facts establish as a matter of law that defendants’ conduct did not violate clearly-established law, defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. … The question of qualified immunity here is a close one, but we do not believe that the present record clearly establishes that the district manager position reasonably could be viewed as a confidential position— or at least

Crosetto v. Heffernan

810 F. Supp. 966 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Oct 22, 1992

“[A] court considering a motion for summary judgment based on qualified immunity has before it a pure question of law: whether, based on all the undisputed facts, the defendant’s conduct violated any clearly established constitutional … Accordingly, where the defense of qualified immunity is properly raised, the plaintiff “bears the burden of establishing the existence of the allegedly clearly established constitutional right.” Rakovich v.

Petit v. City of Chicago

766 F. Supp. 607 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · May 16, 1991

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY Defendants argue that plaintiffs’ claims should be dismissed because defendants are protected by the doctrine of qualified immunity. … violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”

Reynolds v. Guerra

670 F. Supp. 2d 633 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Nov 4, 2009

Qualified Immunity Defendants argue that they are entitled to summary judgment on the excessive force claim under the doctrine of qualified immunity. … The Court finds that Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity on Plaintiffs excessive force claim. Plaintiff has sufficiently alleged a clearly established constitutional violation. 2.

Kammeyer v. City of Sharonville

311 F. Supp. 2d 653 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Dec 16, 2003

As a result of Plaintiffs’ filing of their Third Amended Complaint, the issue of qualified immunity was removed from the case (doc. 119). … Defendants argue that their duty was to their employer, the Sharonville Police Department, and suggest that they owe no clearly established constitutional duties to families of murder victims (doc. 62).

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.