Case law

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

Spiegel v. City of Chicago

920 F. Supp. 891 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Mar 22, 1996

Qualified immunity protects government officials from civil liability “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … The test of qualified immunity for police officers is whether a reasonable officer could have believed that probable cause existed to arrest the plaintiff in light of clearly established law and the information the arresting

Fields v. City of Chicago

805 F. Supp. 2d 536 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Apr 4, 2011

“A prosecutor is entitled to qualified immunity if his or her actions did not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Hill, 627 F.3d at 606 . … Under Buckley IV, Wharrie’s procurement of false statements from Hawkins did not violate Fields’s clearly established constitutional rights, thus entitling Wharrie to qualified immunity for that aspect of Fields’s claims.

Rainey v. Patton

873 F. Supp. 2d 908 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Jun 1, 2012

Qualified Immunity 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 … was clearly established.

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

Cephas v. Booker

District Court, W.D. Virginia · Jul 21, 2021

right; or (2) the right was not clearly established such that it would not have been “clear to a reasonable officer that his conduct was unlawful in the situation he confronted.” … If the court concludes that Cephas has stated facts presenting all elements of a constitutional claim, then the court must also decide whether the contours of the right were clearly established.

Canell v. Oregon Department of Justice

811 F. Supp. 546 · District Court, D. Oregon · Jan 11, 1993

Nor is a defendant who is entitled to qualified immunity for alleged constitutional violations stripped of that immunity merely because his conduct violates clearly settled state law. Davis v. … Qualified Immunity: Defendants may still escape liability for damages if they satisfy the test for qualified immunity.

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.

Gonsalves v. Internal Revenue Service

791 F. Supp. 19 · District Court, D. Maine · Apr 28, 1992

See, e.g., Wages, 915 F.2d at 1235 (“[Defendants are clearly entitled to qualified immunity, since no prior decisions from our circuit have clearly established any of the constitutional rights alleged to have been violated … ’s complaint alleges no actions by defendants that violated a clearly established constitutional right to due process, defendants are immune from suit.”); Baddour, Inc. v.

Reynolds v. City of Anchorage

225 F. Supp. 2d 754 · District Court, W.D. Kentucky · Oct 4, 2002

“A public official is entitled to qualified immunity for conduct in performing discretionary functions so long as that conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … Laccheo, 935 F.2d 109, 111 (6th Cir.1991) (holding that defendants were entitled to qualified immunity because they did not violate a clearly established right, and even if they did actually violate the law a reasonable police

Bond v. Oklahoma County Criminal Justice Authority

District Court, W.D. Oklahoma · Jul 11, 2023

Qualified Immunity Officer Wood asserts she is entitled to qualified immunity as to Plaintiff’s failure- to-protect claim. … 2) the right was clearly established at the time of the violation.”

Blum v. Schlegel

830 F. Supp. 712 · District Court, W.D. New York · Jul 1, 1993

or qualified immunity. … the doctrine of qualified immunity, and on the other hand claiming that defendants violated his right to due process and freedom of speech, which, of course, are clearly established constitutional rights.

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.

Briggs v. Waters

455 F. Supp. 2d 508 · District Court, E.D. Virginia · Oct 3, 2006

discrimination under Title VII also establish discrimination under § 1983). b) Qualified Immunity Waters argues that he is entitled to qualified immunity with respects to Briggs’s § 1983 claim. … Qualified immunity, however, does not shield Waters from Briggs’s allegations of quid pro quo sexual harassment.

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).

Ulmer v. City of Overland Park, Kan.

784 F. Supp. 807 · District Court, D. Kansas · Feb 4, 1992

Generally, public officials performing discretionary functions enjoy qualified immunity from civil damages liability “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … On a motion for summary judgment based on a defense of qualified immunity, the relevant question is whether a reasonable official could have believed his acts were lawful in light of clearly established law and the information

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.”

Murphy v. Bitsoih

320 F. Supp. 2d 1174 · District Court, D. New Mexico · Jun 1, 2004

who assert qualified immunity. … Clearly Established.

B.K. v. NH Dept. HHS

2012 DNH 192 · District Court, D. New Hampshire · Nov 14, 2012

“Qualified immunity shields . . . state officials from money damages unless a plaintiff pleads facts showing (1) that the official violated a constitutional or statutory right and (2) that the right was clearly established … In any event, a single decision from another district court does not provide the “fair warning” of clearly established law necessary to overcome the defendants’ qualified immunity defense. See Lynch v .

Harry v. McDonald

District Court, D. Connecticut · Aug 19, 2022

immunity because they acted in an objectively reasonable manner; and (4) defendants are entitled to qualified immunity because it is not clearly established that plaintiff had a right to … Qualified Immunity Finally, defendants assert that they are entitled to qualified immunity because they acted objectively reasonably, see Doc. #17