Case law

Scozzari v. City of Clare

723 F. Supp. 2d 945 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Apr 21, 2010

Qualified immunity provides “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 … However, the parties do not address whether there are subtle differences between objectively unreasonable conduct that violates clearly established constitutional rights for the purposes of qualified immunity and § 1983,

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.

Hunter v. City of Warner Robins, Ga.

842 F. Supp. 1460 · District Court, M.D. Georgia · Feb 4, 1994

Under this analysis, the defendant is entitled to qualified immunity if either (1) the law was not clearly established, or (2) the law was clearly established but the defendant did not violate the law. Id. n. 14. … Clearly Established Law It is plaintiff’s burden to show that defendant West’s actions violated clearly established constitutional law.

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.

Brown v. Massachusetts

950 F. Supp. 2d 274 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · May 30, 2013

to the doctrine of qualified immunity. … “[T]he second, ‘clearly established,’ step of the qualified immunity analysis ... in turn, has two aspects.” Maldonado v. Fontanes, 568 F.3d 263, 269 (1st Cir.2009).

McWaters v. Rick

195 F. Supp. 2d 781 · District Court, E.D. Virginia · Apr 4, 2002

The Law Of Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity shields government officials from civil liability “ ‘insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … Whether the Rights Were Clearly Established Having concluded that McWaters has alleged constitutional violations, it is now necessary to evaluate whether those rights were “clearly established” at the time of the conduct

Canny v. Bentley

307 F. Supp. 3d 940 · District Court, N.D. Iowa · Apr 4, 2018

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity shields a government official from individual liability when his conduct does not violate "clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have … Therefore, whether defendants are entitled to qualified immunity depends on whether the constitutional right was clearly established as of the time of the violation.

Purvis v. City of Atlanta

142 F. Supp. 3d 1337 · District Court, N.D. Georgia · Sep 29, 2015

-However, Plaintiff makes no reference to clearly established Fourth Amendment violations based on a con-cededly lawful arrest. (See Am. … Whether or not Plaintiffs Fourth Amendment rights were violated, however, Plaintiff has failed to show, in response to Defendants’ assertion of the qualified immunity defense, that “the law clearly established those rights

Telles v. City of El Paso

481 F. Supp. 2d 773 · District Court, W.D. Texas · Mar 8, 2007

District Attorney Esparza’s qualified immunity Esparza argues that he is shielded by qualified immunity from Telles’ § 1983 claim because Telles failed to assert any constitutional violations. … If the official conduct violates a clearly established right, the official is still entitled to qualified immunity if his conduct was objectively reasonable in light of the established legal rules at the time of the alleged

Hammond v. Gordon County

316 F. Supp. 2d 1262 · District Court, N.D. Georgia · Apr 29, 2002

by clearly established law.” … Defendant Johnson thus has established that he acted within his discretionary authority for purposes of the qualified immunity analysis.

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 .

Goncalves v. Reynolds

198 F. Supp. 2d 278 · District Court, W.D. New York · Nov 15, 2001

It is well established that “in initiating a prosecution ..., the prosecutor is immune from a civil suit for damages under § 1983.” Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 430 , 96 S.Ct. 984 , 47 L.Ed.2d 128 (1976). … Furthermore, even if I were to conclude that defendant is not entitled to absolute immunity, I would find him entitled to qualified immunity.

Dougherty v. Golden Gate Bridge

31 F. Supp. 2d 724 · District Court, N.D. California · Jul 7, 1998

qualifying for Eleventh Amendment immunity. … Earlier in the opinion, however, the court clearly had established that the Port Authority enjoyed Eleventh Amendment immunity, id. at 613 ; and it was not until the court held that the Port Authority' enjoyed Eleventh Amendment

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.

Estate of Soberal v. City of Jersey City

529 F. Supp. 2d 477 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Dec 27, 2007

Qualified Immunity Turning to the Defendant officers’ claims of qualified immunity, the Court declines to grant summary judgment in favor of the Defendant officers because immunity does not apply. 11 Qualified immunity is … legal rules that were ‘clearly established’ at the time [the action] was taken.”

Smith v. Ray

855 F. Supp. 2d 569 · District Court, E.D. Virginia · Feb 28, 2012

The defense of qualified immunity protects officers from liability in cases “where clearly established law does not show that [their actions] violated the Fourth Amendment.” Pearson v. … This argument misconstrues the second prong of the qualified immunity inquiry.

Doe v. Lima

270 F. Supp. 3d 684 · District Court, S.D. New York · Aug 31, 2017

Qualified immunity . protects federal and state officials from money damages unless the facts show “(1) that the official violated a statutory or .constitutional right,, and (2) that- the right was ‘clearly established’ at … “Even if the right at issue was clearly established in certain respects, however, an officer is still entitled to qualified immunity if ‘officers of reasonable competence .could disagree’ bn the legality of the action at

Forras v. Andros

470 F. Supp. 2d 283 · District Court, S.D. New York · Sep 29, 2005

Qualified Immunity Defendants argue that the doctrine of qualified immunity precludes discovery. This Court disagrees. … Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, government officials are shielded from liability flowing from their performance of discretionary functions as long as “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory

McPhearson v. Anderson

874 F. Supp. 2d 573 · District Court, E.D. Virginia · Jul 6, 2012

Thus, qualified immunity is available to defendant M.D. … Katz, 533 U.S. 194 , 201-02, 121 S.Ct. 2151 , 150 L.Ed.2d 272 (2001) (explaining that qualified immunity turns on whether the facts demonstrate a constitutional violation and whether the constitutional right is clearly established

Rodriguez v. McGinnis

1 F. Supp. 2d 244 · District Court, S.D. New York · Mar 30, 1998

An officer is entitled to qualified immunity if he establishes either that (1) the challenged conduct did not violate clearly established rights of which a *246 reasonable person would have known, or (2) it was objectively … To establish a qualified immunity defense to an excessive *249 force claim an officer must establish either (1) that the alleged conduct did not violate clearly established rights of which a reasonable person would have known