Case law

Lamb v. Sutton

164 F. Supp. 928 · District Court, M.D. Tennessee · Jul 29, 1958

Kefauver was a legally qualified candidate. … There is no direct evidence that all of the required steps were taken to qualify either candidate in the primary, but the fact that both candidates were legally qualified at the time of the broadcast otherwise clearly appears

Anemone v. Metropolitan Transportation Authority

410 F. Supp. 2d 255 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jan 24, 2006

Qualified Immunity Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, government officials performing discretionary functions are shielded from liability if “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … to such conduct was not “clearly established” at the time of the conduct or (2) the defendant’s challenged action was objectively reasonable in light of the legal rules that were clearly established at the time it was taken

Bremiller v. Cleveland Psychiatric Institute

879 F. Supp. 782 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Jan 12, 1995

Defendants Are Not Entitled To Qualified Immunity. The doctrine of qualified immunity may operate to protect state officials sued as individuals in civil rights actions. … Once defendant raises the qualified immunity defense, the plaintiff must produce additional facts or allegations demonstrating that her constitutional rights were violated and “that these rights were so clearly established

Creech v. SCHOELLKOPH

688 F. Supp. 2d 205 · District Court, W.D. New York · Jan 20, 2010

The doctrine of qualified immunity shields state officials from civil liability for actions performed in the course of their duties if their conduct does not violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights … Therefore, even if the “some evidence” standard was not satisfied, Defendant nevertheless had qualified immunity against liability, as he did not violate clearly established law. See Johnson v.

Petrie v. City of Grapevine

904 F. Supp. 2d 569 · District Court, N.D. Texas · Oct 21, 2012

Qualified Immunity Salame also raises the affirmative defense of qualified immunity. … Sept. 21, 2011) (denying qualified immunity and finding law clearly established where Fifth Circuit had never ruled that speech similar to that uttered by plaintiff was not protected).

Hinman v. Joyce

201 F. Supp. 3d 1283 · District Court, D. Colorado · Aug 12, 2016

Even accepting as true that Joyce behaved as Hinman alleged, Joyce may still enjoy qualified immunity if it was not clearly established in October 2013 that his behavior would violate an individual’s constitutional rights … Rather, Joyce’s attacks on the “clearly established” prong of qualified immunity focus entirely on his testimony at the Probable Cause Hearing. (ECF No. 69 at 14-15.)

Hirpassa v. Albert

District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 31, 2009

By definition, qualified immunity is not absolute. … However, “[a] plaintiff who seeks damages for violation of constitutional or statutory rights may overcome the defendant official’s qualified immunity only by showing that those rights were clearly established at the time

Crosetto v. Heffernan

810 F. Supp. 966 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Oct 22, 1992

“[A] court considering a motion for summary judgment based on qualified immunity has before it a pure question of law: whether, based on all the undisputed facts, the defendant’s conduct violated any clearly established constitutional … Accordingly, where the defense of qualified immunity is properly raised, the plaintiff “bears the burden of establishing the existence of the allegedly clearly established constitutional right.” Rakovich v.

Young v. County of Hawaii

947 F. Supp. 2d 1087 · District Court, D. Hawaii · May 22, 2013

However, even if Officer Yamada’s actions constituted a violation of Plaintiffs Fourth Amendment rights, qualified immunity would apply because Plaintiffs Fourth Amendment rights were not “clearly established” during the … However, even if Defendant Yamada had actually violated Plaintiffs due process rights to notice, qualified immunity still applies because Plaintiffs rights were not “clearly established” at the time of the violation.

Pangilinan v. Castro

2 N. Mar. I. Commw. 429 · District Court, Northern Mariana Islands · Jan 24, 1986

Qualified Immunity The defendants seek summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity. … Wki-le absolute immunity protects absolutely, qualified immunity protects- the' officials "from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established *448 statutory or constitutional rights

Lipsett v. University of Puerto Rico

759 F. Supp. 40 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Mar 13, 1991

Qualified Immunity Defendants claim that the law related to a sexually hostile work environment, which includes the sexual harassment carried out by the residents in plaintiffs surgery program, was not “clearly established … In recent years, the Supreme Court has refined the qualified immunity inquiry by requiring that the right alleged to have been violated not be the right in the “abstract” general sense, but the right be “clearly established

Farrow v. Stanley, et al.

2005 DNH 146 · District Court, D. New Hampshire · Oct 20, 2005

-33-  “[T]he doctrine of qualified immunity protects public officials from civil liability ‘insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … immunity analysis dictates that I determine whether or not that right was clearly established at the time it was violated.

Routhier v. Goggins

229 F. Supp. 3d 299 · District Court, D. Vermont · Jan 18, 2017

Qualified immunity protects state actors “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.” … to qualified immunity.”); Russo v.

Storck v. Suffolk County Department of Social Services

62 F. Supp. 2d 927 · District Court, E.D. New York · Aug 11, 1999

Qualified immunity shields individuals from liability if their conduct did not violate clearly established constitutional rights and it was objectively reasonable for them to have believed that their conduct did not violate … Qualified immunity applies if it was objectively reasonable for the defendant to believe that her actions did not violate a clearly established federally protected right. Id.

Lawlor v. Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago

District Court, N.D. Illinois · Mar 11, 2020

“The qualified immunity defense is designed to protect government agents ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … Pearson, 555 U.S. at 243 (holding that officers were entitled to qualified immunity where they “did not violate clearly established law”).

Oliver Ex Rel. Hines v. McClung

919 F. Supp. 1206 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Dec 20, 1995

The qualified immunity doctrine states that government officials performing discretionary functions are immune from suit for damages under § 1983 if their conduct did not violate clearly established rights of which a reasonable … “A qualified immunity analysis entails a purely objective inquiry to determine whether, at the time of the alleged illegal act, the right asserted by the plaintiff was clearly established in the particular factual context

Detro v. Roemer

732 F. Supp. 673 · District Court, E.D. Louisiana · Mar 21, 1990

Qualified immunity “shields only that conduct not violative of clearly established constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Id. (citations omitted). … In other words, “[ujnless the plaintiffs allegations state a claim of violation of clearly established law, a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal before the commencement of discovery.”

Nicholson v. Moates

159 F. Supp. 2d 1336 · District Court, M.D. Alabama · Sep 5, 2001

When qualified immunity is asserted as a defense, a court must first determine whether the violation of a constitutional right is asserted, then deter *1349 mine whether that right was clearly established. See Wilson v. … As to the clearly established law prong of the qualified immunity analysis, the Plaintiff has cited to no case clearly establishing that similar actions are violative of constitutional rights.

Miller v. Detroit Public Schools

189 F. Supp. 3d 671 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · May 27, 2016

Qualified immunity “shields officials from civil liability so long as their conduct ‘does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’” Brown v. … the qualified immunity analysis.

Mooring v. San Francisco Sheriff's Department

289 F. Supp. 2d 1110 · District Court, N.D. California · Oct 31, 2003

Qualified Immunity The defense 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 … But there was no clearly established right for an inmate to choose his cellmates.