Case law

Buchanan v. City of Kenosha

90 F. Supp. 2d 1008 · District Court, E.D. Wisconsin · Mar 20, 2000

Under the doctrine of qualified immunity “governmental officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … Once a defendant has pleaded a defense of qualified immunity courts employ a two step analysis: (1) does the alleged conduct set out a constitutional violation, and (2) were the constitutional standards clearly established

Whalen v. LANGFELLOW

731 F. Supp. 2d 868 · District Court, D. Minnesota · Aug 10, 2010

“Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, state actors are protected from civil liability when ‘their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have … right was clearly established at the time of the deprivation.”

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

Mennone v. Gordon

889 F. Supp. 53 · District Court, D. Connecticut · Jun 15, 1995

Qualified Immunity Defendants have also raised the defense of qualified immunity. … To account for this, Plaintiff argues that qualified immunity does not demand that pri- or cases be precisely on point in order to find clearly established law. See Stoneking v.

Drake Ex Rel. Cotton v. Koss

393 F. Supp. 2d 756 · District Court, D. Minnesota · Jan 3, 2005

If a constitutional violation can be established, a court then considers whether the right was clearly established. Id. … was clearly established. *764 See Saucier, 533 U.S. at 200-01, 121 S.Ct. 2151 .

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.

Byrd v. City of Bossier

23 F. Supp. 3d 665 · District Court, W.D. Louisiana · May 29, 2014

reasonable in light of then clearly established law.” … objectively reasonable in light of clearly established law.

Gati v. W. Ky. Univ.

283 F. Supp. 3d 616 · District Court, W.D. Kentucky · Sep 27, 2017

(D.N. 1-1) Kline and Priddy argue that qualified immunity protects them from these claims. … The evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to Gati, reveals at most a mistake, but it does not establish intent to harm. Nor does Gati specifically identify or prove the violation of a clearly established right.

Reardon v. Midland Community Schools

814 F. Supp. 2d 754 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Sep 2, 2011

Defendants further contend that even if Plaintiffs’ complaint does state a claim for relief, because Stevens and Faust did not violate a clearly established constitutional right, they are entitled to qualified immunity. … Moreover, even if depositions revealed additional evidence, Plaintiffs are still required to demonstrate that the constitutional right at issue is clearly established to overcome qualified immunity.

Gainor v. Douglas County, Georgia

59 F. Supp. 2d 1259 · District Court, N.D. Georgia · Sep 30, 1998

Thus, the Court concludes that defendant Bearden enjoys qualified immunity as no clearly established state or federal authority forbade his conduct under these circumstances. IV. … As noted supra at 1278, in order to overcome the defense of qualified immunity, plaintiff is required to demonstrate that the right allegedly violated had been clearly established in a similar factual context.

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.

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

Jean-Laurent v. Wilkinson

540 F. Supp. 2d 501 · District Court, S.D. New York · Mar 24, 2008

immunity. … QUALIFIED IMMUNITY The doctrine of qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory

Piechowicz v. United States

685 F. Supp. 486 · District Court, D. Maryland · Mar 29, 1988

In Harlow , Justice Powell wrote that a claim of qualified immunity rests upon the existence, if any, of the “objective reasonableness of an official’s conduct, as measured by reference to clearly established law.” … Case law is not, however, the sole source of clearly established law. Alleged violations of clearly established statutory rights may also bar a defense of qualified immunity. See Davis v.

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.”

Ridgeway v. Union County Commissioners

775 F. Supp. 1105 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Jun 7, 1991

Objective reasonableness is to be measured by reference to clearly established law. Id. … Payton clearly establishes that warrantless home searches absent “exigent” circumstances, are unconstitutional.

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

Becker v. Kroll

340 F. Supp. 2d 1230 · District Court, D. Utah · Oct 19, 2004

“Qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions from liability for civil damages unless their conduct violates clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … With respect to whether defendants Kroll and Wright’s conduct was objectively reasonable in light of clearly established law at the time it took place so as to be entitled to qualified immunity, the Gilchrist decision makes

Standridge v. City of Seaside

545 F. Supp. 1195 · District Court, N.D. California · Aug 26, 1982

Until recently, the qualified immunity defense required the establishment of both objective and subjective good faith. Wood v. Strickland, 420 U.S. 308, 320 , 95 S.Ct. 992 , 43 L.Ed.2d 214 (1975). … It is now the rule 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 constitutional

Mercer v. City of Cedar Rapids, Iowa

79 F. Supp. 2d 1055 · District Court, N.D. Iowa · Dec 6, 1999

Finally, the defendants assert that Byrne is entitled to qualified immunity for performing the discretionary function of terminating Mercer, since that action did not violate Mercer’s clearly established statutory or constitutional … The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals recently explained the requirements for qualified immunity as follows: Officials are entitled to qualified immunity only to the extent that “their conduct does not violate clearly established