Case law

Montano-Perez v. Durrett Cheese Sales, Inc.

666 F. Supp. 2d 894 · District Court, M.D. Tennessee · Oct 13, 2009

Next, the County Defendants argue that any such rights under the NLRA are not “clearly established,” and, therefore, the County Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. … Also, again, the County Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity. The law that no individual may be arrested without probable cause is clearly established.

Miniken v. Walter

978 F. Supp. 1356 · District Court, E.D. Washington · Aug 26, 1997

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY Defendants contend that even if Plaintiffs constitutional rights were violated by prohibiting the delivery of Prison Legal News, they are immune from liability for damages. … A state official is entitled to qualified immunity to the extent that his conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v.

Brocuglio v. Proulx

478 F. Supp. 2d 309 · District Court, D. Connecticut · Mar 23, 2007

I would have likely granted qualified immunity to the defendants because the law was not clearly established in September 1996 whether the officers could arrest Brocuglio in the curtilage after they entered the curtilage … Qualified immunity involves a three-step analysis: (1) whether the officials violated the plaintiffs constitutional right; (2) whether the law was clearly established with respect to that right; and (3) whether reasonable

Jimenez v. New Jersey

245 F. Supp. 2d 584 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Feb 20, 2003

in that any such right was not clearly established. … Government officials are generally granted qualified immunity and are “shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a

Garcia v. Bloomberg

865 F. Supp. 2d 478 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jun 7, 2012

“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 person … First, they invoke state law qualified immunity as a defense.

Piedra v. True

169 F. Supp. 2d 1239 · District Court, D. Kansas · Sep 27, 2001

Qualified immunity shields an individual government official performing discretionary functions from liability for civil damages insofar as his or her conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … Even if the court were to conclude that plaintiff has established a constitutional violation based upon the uncontroverted facts, plaintiff cannot defeat the second prong of the qualified immunity defense.

Koller v. Hilderbrand

933 F. Supp. 2d 272 · District Court, D. Connecticut · Mar 19, 2013

The right to be free from unreasonably destructive searches is clearly established. See Foreman v. … Their, qualified immunity claim thus turns on issues of disputed fact, and the Second Circuit has made clear that “[s]ummary judgment on qualified immunity grounds is not appropriate when there are facts in dispute that are

Brown v. Tucci

960 F. Supp. 2d 544 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · May 20, 2013

A federal right is “clearly established” for purposes of qualified immunity if its contours are “sufficiently clear that a reason-' able official would understand that what he [or she] is doing violates that right.” … The inquiry relating to qualified immunity in this case must account for the question of whether the expressive activities engaged in by Brown “clearly” enjoyed constitutional protection under Pickering and Garcetti.

S t . Louis v. Eldredge

District Court, D. New Hampshire · Jan 26, 1996

This ordinance requires that every "adult-oriented establishment" be well lighted and that the interiors of video viewing booths be "clearly visible" from the common areas of the establishment. … Qualified Immunity Public officials performing discretionary functions are entitled to qualified immunity from suit for violations of federal law "insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory

Williams v. Wicomico County Board of Education

836 F. Supp. 2d 387 · District Court, D. Maryland · Jul 21, 2011

The doctrine of qualified immunity operates when the officials’ “conduct does not violate clearly established constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would know.” Harlow v. … As such, Defendants cannot establish qualified immunity on the face of the Complaint. Last, Defendants challenge the sufficiency of Mr.

Meredith v. Erath

182 F. Supp. 2d 964 · District Court, C.D. California · Sep 19, 2001

Qualified immunity shields public officials from liability “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. … . *974 In order to establish whether the defendants should receive qualified immunity, the Court must consider (1) whether the law governing the official’s conduct was clearly established and (2) whether, given this clearly

C-1 v. City of Horn Lake

775 F. Supp. 940 · District Court, N.D. Mississippi · Jun 15, 1990

A determination of whether an official is protected by qualified immunity “generally turns on the ‘objective legal reasonableness’ of the action assessed in light of the legal rules that were ‘clearly established’ at the … Therefore, Chief Philley is entitled to qualified immunity unless it was apparent to him from the information he possessed that he was violating the plaintiffs’ “clearly established” constitutional rights.

Jones v. Board of Supervisors of the University of Louisiana System

58 F. Supp. 3d 670 · District Court, W.D. Louisiana · Sep 30, 2014

Qualified Immunity for State Officials Randall Webb and Lisa Abney are entitled to qualified immunity from suit in their individual capacities. 2 “Qualified immunity protects public officers from suit if their conduct does … To defeat a defense of qualified immunity, the plaintiff must show “the officer violated a clearly established constitutional right [and that] the official’s conduct was objectively unreasonable under established law.”

Crosby-Bey v. Jansson

586 F. Supp. 96 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 1, 1984

The distinction between absolute and qualified immunity is that the former defeats a suit at the outset, while the "fate of an official with qualified immunity depends upon the circumstances and motivations of his actions … , as established by the evidence at trial.”

Rutherford v. CITY OF NEWPORT NEWS, VIRGINIA

919 F. Supp. 885 · District Court, E.D. Virginia · Feb 29, 1996

Pinder involved the defense of good faith qualified immunity, which asks whether the law was “clearly established” at the time of the incident (in Pinder , in 1989). See Harlow v. … Qualified Immunity Alternatively, the Court holds that the doctrine of good faith qualified immunity protects the three sergeants from liability here.

Swindell v. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation

371 F. Supp. 2d 172 · District Court, N.D. New York · May 2, 2005

The sole basis for Defendants’ motion is that they are entitled to qualified immunity. … Qualified Immunity Roderick, the sole remaining defendant in this action, seeks summary judgment on the claims against him on the basis of qualified immunity.

Eudy v. CITY OF RIDGELAND, MISSISSIPPI

464 F. Supp. 2d 580 · District Court, S.D. Mississippi · Nov 21, 2006

Qualified immunity provides a shield from civil liability to officials whose conduct does not reasonably violate a clearly established constitutional or statutory x-ight. Davis v. … were clearly established at the time it was taken.”)

Wilson v. Schomig

863 F. Supp. 789 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Sep 30, 1994

Qualified Immunity Defendants also move for summary judgment on grounds that they are protected by qualified immunity. … Government officials are entitled to qualified immunity for their official actions unless their conduct violates a “clearly established” right of which a reasonable person would have known. Anderson v.

Schroeder v. McDonald

823 F. Supp. 750 · District Court, D. Hawaii · Dec 3, 1992

Public officials are entitled to qualified immunity from damages for any conduct that “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. … Under the Harlow test, a public official is only not entitled to qualified immunity if the right violated is clearly established. The policy rationale behind this test is two-fold.

" BD" v. DeBuono

130 F. Supp. 2d 401 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jan 15, 2000

Whether a defendant can enjoy qualified immunity “turns on the ‘objective legal reasonableness’ of the action ... assessed in light of the legal rules that were ‘clearly established’ at the time [the action] *436 was undertaken … For a constitutional right to be “clearly established” for purposes of determining whether an officer is entitled to qualified immunity: [T]he contours of the right must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would