Case law

Mooring v. San Francisco Sheriff's Department

289 F. Supp. 2d 1110 · District Court, N.D. California · Oct 31, 2003

Qualified Immunity The defense 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 … But there was no clearly established right for an inmate to choose his cellmates.

Prison Legal News v. Chapman

44 F. Supp. 3d 1289 · District Court, M.D. Georgia · Aug 26, 2014

The Eleventh Circuit “has said clearly, consistently, and on numerous occasions that we may only consider the precedent of these courts in determining whether case law has ‘clearly established’ a right for qualified immunity … In short, the unlawfulness of the publication ban was not clearly established. Defendants are therefore entitled to qualified immunity as to this First Amendment claim. 2.

Moore v. Keller

District Court, N.D. New York · Sep 7, 2021

“Qualified immunity protects government officials from civil damages liability ‘insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have … Katz, 533 U.S. 194 (2001), to defeat qualified immunity a plaintiff must show that (1) the official violated a statutory or constitutional right (2) that was “clearly established” at the time of the challenged conduct

Marange v. Fontenot

879 F. Supp. 679 · District Court, E.D. Texas · Mar 16, 1995

to Sheriff Fontenot’s qualified immunity defense. 1. … When considering a claim of 'qualified immunity, courts engage in a bifurcated analysis. First, courts determine whether plaintiff has alleged the violation of a clearly established constitutional right.

Freedman v. America Online, Inc.

412 F. Supp. 2d 174 · District Court, D. Connecticut · Aug 9, 2005

are entitled to qualified immunity for their conduct. … Qualified Immunity Defendants contend that assuming arguendo that they violated Plaintiffs First Amendment rights, they would nonetheless be immune from liability under the doctrine of qualified immunity.

Standridge v. City of Seaside

545 F. Supp. 1195 · District Court, N.D. California · Aug 26, 1982

Until recently, the qualified immunity defense required the establishment of both objective and subjective good faith. Wood v. Strickland, 420 U.S. 308, 320 , 95 S.Ct. 992 , 43 L.Ed.2d 214 (1975). … It is now the rule that “... 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

Levine v. City of Bothell

904 F. Supp. 2d 1124 · District Court, W.D. Washington · Oct 24, 2012

Qualified Immunity Defendant Ungvarsky is not entitled to qualified immunity because it is clearly established that the failure to support a warrant by oath or affirmation amounts to a federal constitutional violation. … Therefore, the Court must turn to whether the right was clearly established. Because the “oath or affirmation” requirement appears in the text of the constitution, it is clearly established law. U.S. Const, amend. IV.

Cordoves v. Miami-Dade County

92 F. Supp. 3d 1221 · District Court, S.D. Florida · Mar 12, 2015

based upon qualified immunity.” … Qualified Immunity “Qualified immunity offers complete protection for government officials sued in their individual capacities if their conduct ‘does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which

Bennett v. Town of Riverhead

940 F. Supp. 481 · District Court, E.D. New York · Jul 11, 1996

First, a defendant may enjoy qualified immunity if the right asserted by the plaintiff was not clearly established at the time of the alleged violation. … Finally, qualified immunity may be found if it was objectively reasonable for the public official to believe the acts in question did not violate clearly established rights.

Wilson v. Franceschi

735 F. Supp. 395 · District Court, M.D. Florida · Feb 5, 1990

Whether an official asserting qualified immunity is immune from suit is determined by the “ ‘objective reasonableness’ of his action assessed in light of the legal rules that were ‘clearly established’ at the time it was … Further, “Once a defendant advances a defense of qualified immunity, he is entitled to summary judgement unless ‘the legal norms allegedly violated by the defendant were clearly established at the time of the challenged actions

Jones v. Davis

District Court, E.D. Missouri · Sep 30, 2021

of qualified immunity. … He further argues that those rights were clearly established and, thus, Defendant is not eligible for qualified immunity. Doc. [102].

Gannon v. Daley

561 F. Supp. 1377 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Apr 27, 1983

If the law was clearly established, the immunity defense ordinarily should fail, since a reasonably competent public official should know the law governing his conduct.... … Harlow seems to hold that the question of qualified immunity will always be a question of law: the judge will determine whether defendants violated clearly established rights.

Whalen v. LANGFELLOW

731 F. Supp. 2d 868 · District Court, D. Minnesota · Aug 10, 2010

“Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, state actors are protected from civil liability when ‘their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have … right was clearly established at the time of the deprivation.”

Chapman v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons

291 F. Supp. 3d 1260 · District Court, D. Colorado · Jan 25, 2018

Clearly Established Law I next turn to whether the Defendants' actions violated clearly established law. … Accordingly, the Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity, and the motion for summary judgment is denied. IV.

Lutz v. Lavelle

809 F. Supp. 323 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 25, 1991

There is, however, some disagreement as to when a prosecutor is entitled to absolute immunity and when he is entitled to qualified immunity. The leading case on prosecutorial immunity is Imbler v. … A review of the record in the instant case reveals that Defendant Webb is entitled to qualified immunity. *327 It is a well established principle that State officials sued pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 are entitled to qualified

Lipsett v. University of Puerto Rico

759 F. Supp. 40 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Mar 13, 1991

Qualified Immunity Defendants claim that the law related to a sexually hostile work environment, which includes the sexual harassment carried out by the residents in plaintiffs surgery program, was not “clearly established … In recent years, the Supreme Court has refined the qualified immunity inquiry by requiring that the right alleged to have been violated not be the right in the “abstract” general sense, but the right be “clearly established

Jarvis v. Government of the Virgin Islands

919 F. Supp. 177 · District Court, Virgin Islands · Mar 5, 1996

Moreover, the standard does not change in the context of an asserted claim of qualified immunity, Karnes v. … lawful, in light of clearly established law and the information the . . . officer[] possessed."

Gati v. W. Ky. Univ.

283 F. Supp. 3d 616 · District Court, W.D. Kentucky · Sep 27, 2017

(D.N. 1-1) Kline and Priddy argue that qualified immunity protects them from these claims. … The evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to Gati, reveals at most a mistake, but it does not establish intent to harm. Nor does Gati specifically identify or prove the violation of a clearly established right.

Mason v. Melendez

525 F. Supp. 270 · District Court, W.D. Wisconsin · Oct 14, 1981

Jurisdiction and venue are two subjects as to which the judge’s power to find facts is most clearly established. See 5 Moore’s Federal Practice (1981) § 38.36. … “The fate of an official with qualified immunity depends upon the circumstances and motivations of his activities, as established by evidence at trial.” Imbler v.

Tardif v. City of New York

302 F.R.D. 31 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jul 2, 2014

Thirteenth Affirmative Defense: Qualified Immunity Defendants’ thirteenth affirmative defense states, in full, that, “[t]he individually named defendants have not violated any clearly established constitutional or statutory … qualified immunity.”