Case law

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.

Lowry ex rel. Crow v. Watson Chapel School District

508 F. Supp. 2d 713 · District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Aug 22, 2007

In ruling on qualified immunity, the threshold question is whether, taken in the light most favorable to the party asserting the defense, the facts alleged establish the violation of a constitutional right. Saucier v. … Because qualified immunity is immunity from suit, not merely immunity from damages, the issue must be resolved at the earliest stage possible. Id. at 200-01, 121 S.Ct. 2151 .

Pegg v. Klempa

119 F. Supp. 3d 488 · District Court, N.D. West Virginia · Jul 31, 2015

Qualified immunity is abrogated only upon a showing that the officer’s conduct violated a constitutional right and that such right was clearly established at the time the conduct occurred. Id. … Qualified Immunity: Clearly Established . This Court has already found that one prong of Saucier, the constitutional violation prong, has not been met.

McCall-Bey v. Franzen

585 F. Supp. 1295 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · May 14, 1984

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. … Thus it appears that the law was clearly established on the date of the Committee’s and Lane’s actions.

Heron v. City of Philadelphia

987 F. Supp. 400 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 22, 1997

Qualified Immunity Defendant’s second argument with regard to plaintiffs assertion of lack of probable cause is that Officers Young and Scott are immune from suit under the doctrine of qualified immunity. … The basic rule of qualified immunity is that “government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory

Perry v. Elrod

436 F. Supp. 299 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Aug 19, 1977

good faith immunity. … with disregarding the plaintiff’s established rights.

Cygnar v. City of Chicago

652 F. Supp. 287 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Dec 30, 1986

That alone confers the Harlow -dictated qualified immunity on Mathis. … Rather the question is whether it was clearly established when Mathis acted that they were not “confidential” employees. It was not so established then, and that independently shields Mathis with qualified immunity.

Schweitzer v. UNIV. OF TEXAS HEALTH CTR. AT TYLER

688 F. Supp. 278 · District Court, E.D. Texas · Apr 14, 1988

they are protected by the doctrine of qualified immunity as it has been articulated in the decisional law of the U.S. … Qualified Immunity.

Rodriguez v. Stevenson

243 F. Supp. 2d 58 · District Court, D. Delaware · Dec 27, 2002

Qualified Immunity “Governmental officials exercising discretionary functions have qualified immunity from suits seeking damages under § 1983 ‘insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … If the first prong is met, the court then must consider whether the right was clearly established at the time of the alleged constitutional violation. Id.

Taylor v. Sullivan

980 F. Supp. 697 · District Court, S.D. New York · Oct 8, 1997

Qualified immunity will be provided if the “conduct did not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harper v. … clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known,” Harlow v.

Spears v. Ariz. Bd. of Regents

372 F. Supp. 3d 893 · District Court, D. Arizona · Mar 6, 2019

Qualified Immunity Government officials are entitled to qualified immunity "insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known." … Spears, as the party contesting qualified immunity, has the burden to allege "a law was clearly established at the time of an alleged violation." Olivier , 913 F.3d at 860 .

Megargee v. Wittman

550 F. Supp. 2d 1190 · District Court, E.D. California · Mar 19, 2008

Baker’s conduct was not clearly established as of June 6, 2005.” … Qualified immunity protects section 1983 defendants “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have

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

Smallwood v. Renfro

708 F. Supp. 182 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Feb 23, 1989

Coupland too is entitled to dismissal on qualified immunity grounds. … In any case, it will be recalled the test here is one of a “clearly established" right.

Taylor v. Evans

72 F. Supp. 2d 298 · District Court, S.D. New York · Oct 25, 1999

Williams, 193 F.3d at 595-96 (law relating to emergency removal by caseworkers not clearly established in 1990). … Alternatively, as above, the individual defendants in this case are entitled to qualified immunity. They are entitled to immunity for two reasons.

Hendon v. Ramsey

528 F. Supp. 2d 1058 · District Court, S.D. California · Dec 28, 2007

Qualified immunity shields government 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. … Qualified immunity shields 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 would have known

Patrick v. City of Overland Park, Kan.

937 F. Supp. 1491 · District Court, D. Kansas · Jun 21, 1996

Thus defendant is entitled to qualified immunity if plaintiff fails to show that the law was clearly established. See, e.g., Pallottino v. … investigation for his name and address); Medina, 960 F.2d at 1498 (defendant entitled to qualified immunity because plaintiff failed to show it was clearly established that recklessness could give rise to liability under

Gainor v. Douglas County, Georgia

59 F. Supp. 2d 1259 · District Court, N.D. Georgia · Sep 30, 1998

Thus, the Court concludes that defendant Bearden enjoys qualified immunity as no clearly established state or federal authority forbade his conduct under these circumstances. IV. … As noted supra at 1278, in order to overcome the defense of qualified immunity, plaintiff is required to demonstrate that the right allegedly violated had been clearly established in a similar factual context.

Alston v. Read

678 F. Supp. 2d 1061 · District Court, D. Hawaii · Jan 14, 2010

And even if there are questions of fact as to such issues, do Defendants have qualified immunity (as a matter of law) from suit, either because their duty to investigate was not clearly established or because they acted reasonábly … Katz, 533 U.S. 194 , 201, 121 S.Ct. 2151 , 150 L.Ed.2d 272 (2001). 13 “The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established

John Doe v. State of Hawaii Dept. of Educ.

351 F. Supp. 2d 998 · District Court, D. Hawaii · Feb 23, 2004

As discussed infra, it is clearly established that an official capacity lawsuit is no different from a suit against the state itself. … As discussed supra, it is clearly established that an official capacity lawsuit is no different from a suit against the state itself.