Case law

Pollard v. District of Columbia

191 F. Supp. 3d 58 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 9, 2016

Qualified immunity “shields State officials from liability for their discretionary functions ‘insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … established constitutional law, and thus, these claims fail both prongs of the qualified immunity analysis.

Ridge v. Campbell

984 F. Supp. 2d 364 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 25, 2013

The court will grant the motion for failure to state a claim and elect not to address the issue of qualified immunity at this time. … An officer will be denied qualified immunity only where he violates “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v.

Deodatti Colon v. Rosado Rivera

846 F. Supp. 156 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Dec 15, 1993

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY The Supreme Court established in Harlow v. … The general rule is that the defense of qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions from liability for damages in civil suits, “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established

Trujillo v. BOARD OF EDUC. OF ALBUQUERQUE SCHOOLS

377 F. Supp. 2d 977 · District Court, D. New Mexico · Sep 17, 2004

LAW ON QUALIFIED IMMUNITY Qualified immunity protects government officials performing discretionary functions from liability for civil damages "insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … SECOND PRONG OF THE QUALIFIED IMMUNITY ANALYSIS: THE LAW MUST BE CLEARLY ESTABLISHED. Whether the law was clearly established at the time the claim arose is a legal issue for the court. See Elder v.

Cushman v. Monroe County, Kentucky

District Court, W.D. Kentucky · Mar 30, 2022

“Clearly Established Right” Even if Richardson was able to assert a qualified immunity defense, he would not be entitled to immunity because he allegedly violated a clearly established constitutional right … , and if so, (ii) whether the constitutional right was “clearly established” at the time of violation.

Degrafinreid v. Ricks

417 F. Supp. 2d 403 · District Court, S.D. New York · Feb 23, 2006

Defendants argue that Barr and Beebee are entitled to qualified immunity. … Public officials are “immune from liability for money damages in suits brought against them in their individual capacities if ‘their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which

Brockstedt v. Sussex County Council

771 F. Supp. 2d 348 · District Court, D. Delaware · Mar 22, 2011

Analysis — Qualified Immunity “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 … established procedural due process rights, such that defendants have not established, at this time, that they are entitled to- qualified immunity.

Buoniconti v. City of Philadelphia

148 F. Supp. 3d 425 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 7, 2015

Of course, qualified immunity only shields officials “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. … Defendant Osborne violated a clearly established right, Defendant Osborne’s conduct is cloaked with the mantle of qualified immunity. E.

DiSalvio v. Lower Merion High School District

158 F. Supp. 2d 553 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 12, 2001

Second, Russell argues that he enjoys qualified immunity. … With regard to § 1983 actions, public officials generally enjoy qualified immunity for their actions unless those actions violate clearly established constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would know.

Leach v. Manning

105 F. Supp. 2d 707 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Jun 2, 2000

In seeking to invoke qualified immunity, however, Defendants mischaracterize the “clearly established” right at issue here. … rights, but also that these rights were so clearly established when the acts were committed that any official in the defendant’s position, measured objectively, would have clearly understood that he was under an affirmative

EJ v. Hamilton County, Ohio

707 F. Supp. 314 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Feb 6, 1989

Although defendants rely on the doctrine of immunity established in O.R.C. 2744, this immunity is not absolute. … clearly established law of which a reasonable person should have known at the time.”

Webb v. Goldstein

117 F. Supp. 2d 289 · District Court, E.D. New York · Sep 29, 2000

June 30, 2000) (granting defendants qualified immunity on grounds that plaintiff-inmate’s privacy challenge to state’s disclosure of his HIV status was not a clearly established right before the Circuit’s decision in Powell … still have to dismiss the claim on grounds of qualified immunity since no right to privacy under these circumstances was so “clearly established” in 1995 that defendants should reasonably have understood that their conduct

Morrow v. Igleburger

67 F.R.D. 675 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Oct 25, 1974

It is not difficult, once the quasi-judicial immunity for prosecuting attorneys is clearly established, to extend such immunity to an assistant prosecuting attorney. … QUALIFIED IMMUNITY FOR THE POLICE Regarding suits under § 1983 against police officers there exists a “qualified immunity.” Qualified immunity differs from immunity doctrines in a strict sense.

Popovic v. United States

997 F. Supp. 672 · District Court, D. Maryland · Feb 27, 1998

Qualified immunity, however, protects “government officials performing discretionary functions ... from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … The qualified immunity inquiry is at an end. Hadley enjoys that immunity and Popovic’s constitutional claim fails. VII.

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.

Berry v. City of Philadelphia

188 F. Supp. 3d 464 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · May 20, 2016

Was the Right Clearly Established? Even when a plaintiff can show a violation of constitutional rights, qualified immunity may shield an officer from trial. Brosseau v. … Nassan, 556 Fed.Appx. 103, 108 (3d Cir.2014) (holding that Abraham remained good law that could clearly establish a constitutional right for the purpose of qualified immunity); Lamont, 637 F.3d at 185 (“Assuming (as we must

Swan v. United States

159 F. Supp. 2d 1174 · District Court, N.D. California · Mar 21, 2001

Young-Millers’s Qualified Immunity from Swan’s Eighth Amendment Claim The defense of qualified immunity protects “government officials ... from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly … The qualified immunity analysis then becomes a two-part test: (1) Was the law governing the official’s conduct clearly established?

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.

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

Hensley v. Gassman

763 F. Supp. 2d 876 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Jan 14, 2011

Under qualified immunity, government officials performing discretionary functions are generally “shielded from liability from civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … Determining qualified immunity for government officials requires two inquiries: (1) whether the plaintiff has shown that a constitutional violation has occurred; and (2) that the right was clearly established at the time