Case law

Wagner v. GENESEE COUNTY BD. OF COM'RS

607 F. Supp. 1158 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Apr 23, 1985

However, the Supreme Court has concluded that an immunity that was "well established at common law at the time § 1983 was enacted and ... … here just because these officers' immunity is absolute rather than qualified.

Munir v. Scott

792 F. Supp. 1472 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Apr 27, 1992

The key issue in analyzing a claim of qualified immunity is whether the defendant’s alleged conduct violated “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … Accordingly, defendant is not entitled to qualified immunity. II.

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.

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

Demoret v. Zegarelli

361 F. Supp. 2d 193 · District Court, S.D. New York · Mar 4, 2005

Qualified Immunity A. … Qualified Immunity Standard “Government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional

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.”

Buchanan Ex Rel. Estate of Buchanan v. Maine

417 F. Supp. 2d 45 · District Court, D. Maine · Feb 16, 2006

Step Two: Whether the Law Was Clearly Established The second step of the qualified immunity analysis is “whether the law was clearly established prior to” the violation. Savard, 338 F.3d at 27 . … Step Three: Whether a Reasonable Officer Would Have Understood His Conduct Contravened Clearly Established Law The third and final step in the qualified immunity analysis requires the Court to determine “whether a reasonable

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).

Schoolcraft v. City of New York

133 F. Supp. 3d 563 · District Court, S.D. New York · Sep 18, 2015

However, City Defendants have not established that Dr. Lamstein’s knowledge alone is enough for qualified immunity because “she is indisputably part of the investigation and was in ‘some communication.’ ” City Defs.’ … Plaintiff next seeks reconsideration of the Court’s holding with respect to qualified immunity. See generally PL’s Mem. in Supp’t 3.

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.

Strain v. Kaufman County District Attorney's Office

23 F. Supp. 2d 685 · District Court, N.D. Texas · Feb 23, 1998

Qualified Immunity and the State Defendants Qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions from personal civil liability “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … Again, the Fifth Circuit held that the state actors were entitled to qualified immunity finding there was no clearly established right to family integrity. Id. at 1173 .

Stevens v. Trumbull County Sheriffs' Department

63 F. Supp. 2d 851 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Sep 1, 1999

Qualified Immunity Defendant Norman Olson asserts that he is entitled to judgment as a matter of law on the basis of qualified immunity. … Because no clearly established constitutional right existed at the time the alleged violation occurred, Defendant Olson is entitled to qualified immunity- State Claims This Court finds that genuine issues of material fact

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.

Stephenson v. Nassif

160 F. Supp. 3d 884 · District Court, E.D. Virginia · Dec 21, 2015

Courts in this district have uniformly concluded that the Supreme Court’s Mesa decision establishes four necessary elements that a defendant must show in order to qualify for removal under § 1442(a)(1): (i) that the defendant … of absolute 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.

Doe v. Town of Wayland

179 F. Supp. 3d 155 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Apr 13, 2016

“The doctrine of qualified immunity shields officials from civil liability so long as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitu *170 tional rights of which a reasonable person would have known … “Qualified immunity is available to the defendants if, at the time of the alleged violations, the law was not clearly established.” Savard v. Rhode Island, 320 F.3d 34 , 38 (1st Cir.2003).

Arce v. Banks

913 F. Supp. 307 · District Court, S.D. New York · Feb 6, 1996

Gilley, 500 U.S. 226, 232 , 111 S.Ct. 1789, 1793 , 114 L.Ed.2d 277 (1991) (threshold inquiry of qualified immunity is whether plaintiff asserted violation of constitutional right at all), qualified immunity protects Banks … Public officials are entitled to immunity from damage actions insofar as a reasonable person in defendant’s position would believe that his “conduct [did] not violate clearly established ... constitutional rights.”

Johnson v. Garraghty

57 F. Supp. 2d 321 · District Court, E.D. Virginia · Jul 28, 1999

The plain meaning of this phrase clearly encompasses such claims. … Qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions from civil liability insofar as their conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable

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.

Keese v. United States

632 F. Supp. 85 · District Court, S.D. Texas · Feb 10, 1985

These are clearly objective circumstances that prima facie establish that the agents were acting within the scope of their authority. … Moreover, it is clearly insufficient to establish bad faith.