Case law

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

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.”

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

Gay v. City of Daleville

953 F. Supp. 1315 · District Court, M.D. Alabama · Jul 17, 1996

However, even disputes over genuine issues of material fact will not “preclude summary judgment premised on a defendant’s qualified immunity if the legal norms allegedly violated were not clearly established at the time of … Gay’s death no decision had clearly established that Chief Etheredge’s actions and inactions constituted deliberate indifference, the court finds that he is entitled to qualified immunity on this issue.

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.

Segreti v. Gillen

259 F. Supp. 2d 733 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · May 1, 2003

The constitutional right to free speech was clearly established at the time of this incident. … Therefore, because plaintiff has alleged a constitutional violation, and that constitutional right was clearly established at the time of the violation, defendants’ motion to dismiss Count I based on qualified immunity is

Mohil v. Glick

842 F. Supp. 2d 1072 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Feb 1, 2012

Immunity But Mohils have cleared that state actor hurdle only to fall at the next: the need to avoid foundering on the shoals of immunity — not just qualified immunity, but absolute immunity. 8 This opinion turns then to … Proc. 12(b)(6), (c)) or *1078 shown (see Rules 50, 56) make out a violation of a constitutional right” and also “whether the right at issue was ‘clearly established’ at the time of defendant’s alleged misconduct.”

Durrani v. Valdosta Technical Institute

810 F. Supp. 301 · District Court, M.D. Georgia · Dec 28, 1992

Eleventh Amendment Immunity VTI and defendants Bridges and Pruitt, in their official capacities, have raised the affirmative defense of state sovereign immunity. VTI is an agency of the State of Georgia. … Plaintiff clearly was a member of a protected class, was qualified to do the job, and was subjected to adverse employment action.

Somavia v. Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department

816 F. Supp. 638 · District Court, D. Nevada · Mar 10, 1993

Qualified immunity is immunity from suit, and not merely a defense to liability. Hunter v. Bryant, — U.S. -, 112 S.Ct. 534 , 116 L.Ed.2d 589 (1991). … Under Supreme Court and Ninth Circuit precedent, “when a law enforcement officer asserts qualified immunity from liability for civil rights violations, the district court must -determine whether, in light of clearly established

Ricks v. Pauch

322 F. Supp. 3d 813 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · May 30, 2018

Defendants argue, however, that the Sixth Circuit wrongly decided the "clearly established" prong of the qualified immunity analysis in Moldowan , and submit that it was not clearly established in 1992 that such a Brady - … "Qualified immunity is applicable unless the official's conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right." Id.

Doe v. University of Alabama

177 F. Supp. 3d 1380 · District Court, N.D. Alabama · Mar 31, 2016

Qualified immunity protects government officials performing discretionary functions from liability in their individual capacity if their conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of … In order to determine whether a motion to dismiss is due to be granted on the basis of qualified immunity, a court must “determine whether the complaint alleges a clearly established constitutional violation, accepting the

Wright v. Santopietro

325 F. Supp. 2d 79 · District Court, D. Connecticut · Sep 29, 2003

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity shields governmental actors from liability for suits brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 7 as long as their conduct does not “violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights … When “the plaintiffs federal rights and the scope of the official’s permissible conduct are clearly established, the qualified immunity defense protects a government actor if it was objectively reasonable for him to believe

Blythe v. Schlievert

245 F. Supp. 3d 959 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Mar 28, 2017

One court has recently summarized Sixth Circuit qualified immunity law: The Supreme Court has repeatedly told courts ... not to define clearly established law at a high level of generality, since doing so avoids the crucial … Those which do consider qualified immunity vis-a-vis a § 1983 claim have upheld the defendants’ immunity claim. Doe v.

Show v. Patterson

955 F. Supp. 182 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jan 7, 1997

Qualified Immunity Government officials performing discretionary functions are entitled to qualified immunity “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … Coughlin, 929 F.Supp. at 150 , defendants here are “clearly entitled to qualified immunity for acts taken prior to the effective date of the statute, November 16, 1993.”

Levinson-Roth v. Parries

872 F. Supp. 1439 · District Court, D. Maryland · Jan 5, 1995

The Court holds that the law “clearly established” this right in the factual context in which Deputy Popkin allegedly acted, thus depriving Deputy Popkin of the protection of qualified immunity. … Moreover, the law clearly established Levinson-Roth’s right to be free from strip searches absent any indication that she possessed weapons or contraband, thus depriving the county defendants of a qualified immunity defense

Davila v. N. Reg'l Joint Police Bd.

370 F. Supp. 3d 498 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 27, 2019

"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 … In deciding whether qualified immunity applies, a court must determine whether the facts that the claimant has shown make out a violation of a constitutional right and whether the right at issue was "clearly established"

Dowdell v. Chapman

930 F. Supp. 533 · District Court, M.D. Alabama · May 6, 1996

However, even disputes over genuine issues of material fact will not “preclude summary judgment premised on a defendant’s qualified immunity if the legal norms allegedly violated were not clearly established at the time of … Instead, the question in this case, as in all qualified immunity cases, is fact specific: in May 1991, was it clearly established in this circuit that it was unconstitutional for a mental institution to fail to supervise

Frary v. County of Marin

81 F. Supp. 3d 811 · District Court, N.D. California · Feb 25, 2015

“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 … As it is “clearly established that officers [can] not intentionally deny or delay access to medical care,” Clement, 298 F.3d at 906 , Nurse Fetterly is not presently entitled to qualified immunity on this claim.

Vélez Rivera v. Agosto-Alicea

334 F. Supp. 2d 72 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Aug 24, 2004

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity constitutes a right not to stand trial or face the burdens of litigation. See Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 , 201, 121 S.Ct. 2151 , 150 L.Ed.2d 272 (2001). … The procedures regarding qualified immunity allow for judicial review, via certiorari, on the qualified immunity issue. Id. at 207, 121 S.Ct. 2151 .

BUSHELL-McINTYRE v. Foster

520 F. Supp. 2d 1170 · District Court, C.D. California · Sep 21, 2005

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY BASED ON PROBABLE CAUSE FOR ARREST A claim of qualified immunity requires a two part analysis. … With regard to this second incident, the evidence clearly established that Officer Foster believed that Plaintiff shoved him.