Case law

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.

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.

Gross v. Cairo

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 15, 2022

Cairo has not established that he is entitled to qualified immunity. … Qualified immunity requires a two-prong inquiry: “(1) whether the facts alleged by the plaintiff show the violation of a constitutional right, and (2) whether the law was clearly established at the time of the violation

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"

Scott v. Estes

60 F. Supp. 2d 1260 · District Court, M.D. Alabama · Aug 4, 1999

As established by the Supreme Court in Harloiu, the test for ‘good faith’ or qualified immunity turns primarily on the objective reasonableness of the official’s conduct in light of established law: “governmental officials … Where the law that the defendant allegedly violated was not clearly established at the time of the alleged offense, the defendant is entitled to qualified immunity. See Stewart v.

Derosier v. Balltrip

149 F. Supp. 3d 1286 · District Court, D. Colorado · Mar 8, 2016

To “survive á motion to dismiss based on qualified immunity, the plaintiff must allege sufficient facts that show— when.taken as true — the defendant plausibly violated his constitutional rights, which were clearly established … In addition, for a right to be clearly established, “there must be a Supreme Court or Tenth Circuit decision on point, or the clearly established weight of authority from other courts must have found the law to be as the

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.

Luck v. Mount Airy 1, LLC

901 F. Supp. 2d 547 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 4, 2012

Qualified immunity Commonwealth Defendants argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity. … clearly established .... ” Brown v.

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.

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

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.

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.

Oliver v. Cuttler

968 F. Supp. 83 · District Court, E.D. New York · May 24, 1997

Qualified immunity Government actors who perform discretionary functions are protected from liability for civil damages where their conduct does not violate a clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … Even where the plaintiffs rights and the scope of the official’s permissible conduct are clearly established, the qualified immunity defense protects a governmental actor if it was “objectively reasonable” for the actor to

Green v. Bauvi

792 F. Supp. 928 · District Court, S.D. New York · May 8, 1992

Qualified immunity shields state officials who perform discretionary functions “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a … Defense of Qualified Immunity Defendants assert that “any rights [Green] may have concerning the timeliness of his hearings were not clearly established at the time, and defendants are qual-ifiedly immune.”

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.

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).

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

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

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