Case law

Hansen v. Williamson

440 F. Supp. 2d 663 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Jun 20, 2006

In other words, qualified immunity is appropriate either on the basis that the right allegedly violated was not at the time “clearly established,” or if “clearly established,” was one that a “reasonable” person in the defendant … Plaintiff satisfied both prongs of the qualified immunity analysis. It is clearly established that an arrest without probable cause violates the Fourth Amendment. Klein v. Long, 275 F.3d 544, 550 (6th Cir.2001).

Sutterfield v. City of Milwaukee

870 F. Supp. 2d 633 · District Court, E.D. Wisconsin · Apr 30, 2012

Sutterfield’s constitutional rights; making that assumption, the Court will evaluate whether those rights were so *644 clearly established so as to strip the officers of their qualified immunity. … Accordingly, the Court is obliged to conclude that the defendant officers are entitled to qualified immunity, as their actions did not violate Ms. Sutterfield’s “clearly established” rights.

Cahill v. O'DONNELL

7 F. Supp. 2d 341 · District Court, S.D. New York · May 21, 1998

Qualified Immunity The doctrine of qualified immunity entitles public officers to be shielded from liability for damages unless their conduct violates clearly established constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … Defendant Valle is entitled to qualified immunity.

Burda Bros., Inc. v. Walsh

61 F. Supp. 2d 648 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Aug 16, 1999

A government official is not entitled to qualified immunity if his conduct results in the violation of a clearly established statutory or constitutional right of which a reasonable person would have known. … To withstand a motion for summary judgment based on a claim of qualified immunity in the Sixth Circuit, a plaintiff must establish two things.

Demers Ex Rel. Demers v. Leominster School Department

263 F. Supp. 2d 195 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · May 16, 2003

Even if the law is clearly established, an official is entitled to qualified immunity if at the time of the challenged actions, such official’s belief that his or her actions were lawful is “objectively legally reasonable … such rights were not clearly established.

Khan v. Ryan

145 F. Supp. 2d 280 · District Court, E.D. New York · Apr 10, 2001

Qualified Immunity Defendant officers may be qualifiedly immune from liability under section 1983 if “1) their actions did not violate clearly established law, or 2) it was objectively reasonable for them to believe that … Qualified immunity protects government officials performing discretionary functions from liability for civil damages when their conduct does not violate any clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which

Baron v. Port Authority of New York and New Jersey

977 F. Supp. 646 · District Court, S.D. New York · Sep 4, 1997

The Supreme Court has established a balance between these conflicting objectives by generally providing government officials “performing discretionary functions with a qualified immunity, shielding them from civil damages … Via, 821 F.2d 913, 921 (2d Cir.1987) (“even when plaintiffs federal rights are clearly defined, qualified immunity may still be available if it was ‘objectively reasonable’ for [public official] to believe that his acts did

Auburn Medical Center, Inc. v. Andrus

9 F. Supp. 2d 1291 · District Court, M.D. Alabama · Jun 12, 1998

First, Plaintiff appears to assert that Defendant Sanders is not entitled to qualified immunity, as he violated clearly established SHPDA regulations. … However, a state regulation is not “clearly established federal law” sufficient to withstand Defendant’s defense of qualified immunity. Rather, Plaintiff must point to some clearly established federal right.

Graham v. Gagnon

104 F. Supp. 3d 753 · District Court, E.D. Virginia · May 6, 2015

Qualified immunity, an affirmative defense to a § 1983 action, shields government officials from liability for damages so long as “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … ask whether the right alleged to have been violated was clearly established at the time the violation occurred such that a reasonable person would have known that his conduct was unconstitutional.

Oliver v. City of Orlando

574 F. Supp. 2d 1279 · District Court, M.D. Florida · Aug 20, 2008

Once a defendant establishes that he was acting within the scope of his discretionary authority, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to show that qualified immunity is not appropriate. Id. … Second, if such violation occurred, the Court must determine whether that right was clearly established. Id.

Pentlarge v. Murphy

541 F. Supp. 2d 421 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Mar 31, 2008

immunity. 10 The First Circuit employs a three-part procedure in order to determine whether a state actor is entitled to qualified immunity. … However, plaintiffs’ damages claim must fail on the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis.

Pierpont v. Allen

415 F. Supp. 1386 · District Court, D. Maryland · Jul 19, 1976

This case can no longer be an adequate statement of law, since it accords to the prosecutor only a qualified immunity, and is clearly overruled by Inbler v. Pachtman, supra. In Hilliard v. … , he enjoys only qualified immunity.

Wilder v. Village of Amityville

288 F. Supp. 2d 341 · District Court, E.D. New York · Oct 30, 2003

the additional grounds of their qualified immunity from such suits. … Police officers accused of the use of excessive force, who do not violate clearly established constitutional or statutory rights which they may reasonably be expected to be aware of, are protected by a qualified immunity

Bradley v. RELL

703 F. Supp. 2d 109 · District Court, N.D. New York · Mar 26, 2010

Legal Standard Governing Doctrine of Qualified Immunity “Once qualified immunity is pleaded, plaintiffs complaint will be dismissed unless defendant’s alleged conduct, when committed, violated ‘clearly established statutory … Scherer, 468 U.S. 183, 190 , 104 S.Ct. 3012 , 82 L.Ed.2d 139 (1984) ("Even defendants who violate [clearly established] constitutional rights enjoy a qualified immunity that protects them from liability for damages unless

McCurry v. Moore

242 F. Supp. 2d 1167 · District Court, N.D. Florida · Nov 21, 2002

Macon County, 1 F.3d 1558, 1563 (11th Cir.1993) (denying qualified immunity defense and finding there was a clearly established right under the Fourteenth Amendment to not be falsely imprisoned); Douthit v. … Indeed, in 1993 the Eleventh Circuit reversed the granting of a qualified immunity defense in Cannon and found the law to have been clearly established by 1980 based on Douthit. Cannon, 1 F.3d at 1564-65 .

Kirschling v. Lake Forest School District

687 F. Supp. 927 · District Court, D. Delaware · Jun 3, 1988

Since one purpose of qualified immunity is to protect the official from going to trial, the Court must determine whether plaintiff’s complaint alleges acts violating clearly established law. Mitchell v. … Kirschling’s right to a hearing was clearly established at the time the Board terminated his contract.

Lincoln v. Maketa

176 F. Supp. 3d 1179 · District Court, D. Colorado · Mar 31, 2016

Accordingly, the defense of qualified immunity is unavailable. … is not entitled to the defense of qualified immunity.

Hilton v. Wright

928 F. Supp. 2d 530 · District Court, N.D. New York · Mar 11, 2013

Qualiñed Immunity The doctrine of qualified immunity protects state actors from liability if their conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known … Because the right in question here was clearly established, Dr.

Benedict v. Town of Newburgh

125 F. Supp. 2d 675 · District Court, S.D. New York · Dec 29, 2000

Qualified Immunity The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials from lawsuits for money damages in cases where “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of … Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity if either (1) their actions did not violate clearly established law, or (2) it was objectively reasonable for them to believe that their actions did not violate such law.

Olson v. CITY OF ELK POINT, SD

655 F. Supp. 2d 973 · District Court, D. South Dakota · Aug 27, 2009

As the Eighth Circuit has stated, “Government officials who perform discretionary functions are entitled to qualified immunity unless their alleged conduct violated clearly established federal constitutional or statutory … If the answer is no, we grant qualified immunity. If the answer is yes, we go on to determine “whether the right was clearly established.” Id.