Case law

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.

Morelli v. Webster

554 F. Supp. 2d 46 · District Court, D. Maine · May 19, 2008

Excessive Force The Court next considered whether qualified immunity protects Defendant for the force he used against Morelli. … Defendant, therefore, would be entitled to qualified immunity.

Yarnall v. Mendez

509 F. Supp. 2d 421 · District Court, D. Delaware · Sep 10, 2007

Qualified Immunity Mendez, Lowe, and Buchert 9 argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity. … “If no constitutional right would have been violated were the allegations established, there is no necessity for further inquiries concerning qualified immunity.” Id.

Wicker v. City of Galveston

944 F. Supp. 553 · District Court, S.D. Texas · Oct 24, 1996

Whether a defendant asserting qualified immunity may be personally liable turns on the objective legal reasonableness of the defendant’s actions in light of clearly established law. Id. at 639 , 107 S.Ct. at 3038 . … Thus, because there are no genuine issues of fact material to the Court’s qualified immunity determination, the Court concludes that the Officers are shielded from liability by the doctrine of qualified immunity.

Terrell v. City of El Paso

481 F. Supp. 2d 757 · District Court, W.D. Texas · Feb 26, 2007

District Attorney Esparza’s qualified immunity Esparza argues that he is shielded by qualified immunity from Terrell’s § 1983 *764 because Terrell failed to assert any constitutional violations. … If the official conduct violates a clearly established right, the official is still entitled to qualified immunity if his conduct was objectively reasonable in light of the established legal rules at the time of the alleged

Foutz v. City of West Valley City

345 F. Supp. 2d 1272 · District Court, D. Utah · Nov 24, 2004

Once a qualified immunity defense is asserted, the plaintiff is required to show that (1) the defendant violated a constitutional or statutory right and (2) the right violated was clearly established when the violation occurred … Qualified immunity is “an entitlement not to stand trial or face the other burdens of litigation.” ...

Davila Aleman v. Feliciano Melecio

992 F. Supp. 91 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Jan 22, 1998

Qualified Immunity “Qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions from civil liability for money damages when their conduct does not violate ‘clearly established’ statutory authority or … Defendants in this case are clearly not protected by qualified immunity based on any notion that the law of political discharge was not clear at the time of their actions.

Moore v. Peters

92 F. Supp. 3d 109 · District Court, W.D. New York · Mar 13, 2015

Qualified immunity protects a government official from civil liability if his or her conduct “ ‘does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’ ” Danahy … Accordingly, Defendants’ motion based upon qualified immunity is denied.

Graham v. City of New York

928 F. Supp. 2d 610 · District Court, E.D. New York · Mar 6, 2013

Repicky, 511 F.3d 239, 244 (2d Cir.2007) (noting that Fourth Amendment violations are clearly established). Nevertheless, the Officer Defendants could still be immune from the claims if their actions were reasonable. … Dist., 3 A.D.3d 669 , 770 N.Y.S.2d 480, 482 (2004) (“A government official performing a discretionary function is entitled to qualified immunity provided his or her conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or

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

Davis v. Jackson County Municipal Court

941 F. Supp. 2d 870 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Apr 23, 2013

Qualified Immunity ' With regard to Davis’ remaining Title VII official capacity claim, Judge Musick contends that he is entitled to qualified *883 immunity. … “The qualified-immunity doctrine shields government officials performing discretionary functions from civil liability unless their conduct violates clearly established rights.” Quigley 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

Hernandez v. United States

34 F. Supp. 3d 1168 · District Court, D. Colorado · Feb 28, 2014

the right at issue was clearly established at the time of the defendant’s alleged misconduct. … In the Tenth Circuit, “for a right to be clearly established, ‘there must be a Supreme Court or Tenth Circuit decision on point, or the clearly established weight of authority from other courts must have found the *1185 law

Orum v. Haines

68 F. Supp. 2d 726 · District Court, N.D. West Virginia · Sep 21, 1999

Additionally, qualified immunity shields a governmental official from liability if the officer’s conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known … Therefore the Defendant, Warden Williams Haines is entitled to qualified immunity.

Foote v. Spiegel

903 F. Supp. 1463 · District Court, D. Utah · Oct 23, 1995

the claim of qualified immunity.” … McSwain, 29 F.3d 558 (10th Cir.1994), further detention was reasonable, and (2) qualified immunity is appropriate because the applicable law was not clearly established. a.

Maguire v. Coughlin

901 F. Supp. 101 · District Court, N.D. New York · Oct 18, 1995

Qualified Immunity Defendants raised qualified immunity as an affirmative defense. … “Once qualified immunity is pleaded, plaintiffs complaint will be dismissed unless defendant’s alleged conduct, when committed, violated ‘clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person

Keeney v. City of New London

196 F. Supp. 2d 190 · District Court, D. Connecticut · Mar 25, 2002

They did not present an argument that they were entitled to qualified immunity for striking Nolan in the head and face. Accordingly, the court does not address whether qualified immunity applies to that conduct. … [ ] ... in light of the legal rules that were clearly established at the time it was taken.’

ROBINSON v. MCNEESE

District Court, M.D. Georgia · Feb 26, 2021

“The doctrine of 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 … The Court presents the analysis in its entirety to clearly show that Plaintiff makes no effort to present an argument confined to the qualified immunity framework discussed earlier.

Cabrera v. LeVierge, et al.

2008 DNH 138 · District Court, D. New Hampshire · Aug 6, 2008

Qualified Immunity LeVierge also raises the defense of qualified immunity. Plaintiff does not address the qualified immunity issue in his objection to summary judgment. … kicked and punched while shackled was clearly established at the time.

Braden ex rel. M v. Mountain Home School District

903 F. Supp. 2d 729 · District Court, W.D. Arkansas · Oct 18, 2012

Defendants assert the affirmative defense of qualified immunity with respect to Plaintiffs § 1983 claim. … “A state official sued in her individual capacity is entitled to qualified immunity so long as her conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known