Case law

Santine v. Roberts

661 F. Supp. 1165 · District Court, D. Delaware · Jun 16, 1987

It is well settled that police officers are entitled to qualified and not absolute immunity. Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547 , 87 S.Ct. 1213 , 18 L.Ed.2d 288 (1967). … That standard is satisfied if the officer’s conduct does not violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Id. at 818 , 102 S.Ct. at 2738 .

Whitley v. New Mexico Children, Youth & Families Department

184 F. Supp. 2d 1146 · District Court, D. New Mexico · Jul 26, 2001

Whether Defendants Rosales, Drake, and Zarate are entitled to qualified immunity. 2 Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, governmental officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability … Thus, Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity with respect to Plaintiffs § 1983 claims.

Hines v. Jefferson

338 F. Supp. 3d 1288 · District Court, N.D. Georgia · Sep 5, 2018

' for qualified immunity purposes only by decisions of the U.S. … established in three ways: "(1) case law with indistinguishable facts clearly establishing the constitutional right; (2) a broad statement of principle within the Constitution, statute, or case law that clearly establishes

Carlson v. Beemer

225 F. Supp. 3d 297 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 21, 2016

Qualified immunity protects a state actor who has committed a constitutional violation if the plaintiffs rights were not “clearly established” when the individual acted. Pearson v. … B, Clearly Established Law The second qualified immunity prong tasks the court to determine whether the right in question was “clearly established” at the time of the alleged violation. See Spady, 800 F.3d at 637 .

Levin v. Madigan

697 F. Supp. 2d 958 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Mar 10, 2010

Once a qualified immunity defense is asserted, the plaintiff faces the burden of demonstrating that “the legal norms allegedly violated by the defendant were clearly established at the time of the challenged actions.” … Because the availability of Plaintiffs equal protection claim for age discrimination is not clearly established, Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity with respect to Count IV.

Dockery v. Unified School District No. 231

382 F. Supp. 2d 1234 · District Court, D. Kansas · Aug 12, 2005

Qualified Immunity for Dr. Yoho (Count II) Dr. Yoho also argues that Count II of the first amended complaint must be dismissed against him, as he is entitled to qualified immunity. … Once a defendant asserts a qualified immunity defense, the court employs a two-part test.

Genovese v. Town of Southampton

921 F. Supp. 2d 8 · District Court, E.D. New York · Feb 1, 2013

Even if a state actor deprives an individual of their constitutional rights, the doctrine of qualified immunity shields government officials from civil liability if their “conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … Thus, Iberger would be entitled to qualified immunity because, even assuming arguendo that defendants’ actions were unreasonable under current law, “qualified immunity protects officers from the sometimes hazy border between

LIVINGSTON v. STATE OF MAINE

District Court, D. Maine · Apr 24, 2024

The United States is immune from state constitutional claims. See Rich v. United States, 158 F. Supp. 2d 619, 630 (D. … When a plaintiff has failed to establish a waiver of sovereign immunity, a federal court lacks jurisdiction to hear the case.”).

Watkins v. New Castle County

374 F. Supp. 2d 379 · District Court, D. Delaware · Jun 16, 2005

Plaintiffs argue in response that “the evidence clearly establishes that ... … clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”

Erickson v. BOARD OF COUNTY COM'RS

801 F. Supp. 414 · District Court, D. Colorado · Aug 15, 1992

Qualified immunity shields government officials from liability for civil damages while performing discretionary functions insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of … In some circumstances the fact-specific balance struck under Pickering may preclude a determination of "clearly established law", thereby giving rise to qualified immunity under Harlow . Patrick, 953 F.2d at 1246 .

Fludd v. Mitchell

181 F. Supp. 3d 132 · District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 20, 2016

Qualified Immunity Even if the various “J. … “The doctrine of 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.

Alfredia Edwards as Independent Administrator of the Estate of Nathaniel Edwards v. Officer John Doe

District Court, N.D. Illinois · Feb 23, 2022

Qualified Immunity Analysis Cater raises an affirmative defense of qualified immunity. Dkt. 139, at 8. … Once the defense of qualified immunity is raised, a plaintiff “must show (1) that the defendant violated a constitutional right, and (2) that the right was clearly established at the time so that it would have been clear

Taylor v. Evans

72 F. Supp. 2d 298 · District Court, S.D. New York · Oct 25, 1999

Williams, 193 F.3d at 595-96 (law relating to emergency removal by caseworkers not clearly established in 1990). … Alternatively, as above, the individual defendants in this case are entitled to qualified immunity. They are entitled to immunity for two reasons.

Maguire v. Coughlin

901 F. Supp. 101 · District Court, N.D. New York · Oct 18, 1995

Qualified Immunity Defendants raised qualified immunity as an affirmative defense. … “Once qualified immunity is pleaded, plaintiffs complaint will be dismissed unless defendant’s alleged conduct, when committed, violated ‘clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person

Bonds v. Fizer

713 F. Supp. 2d 752 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · May 20, 2010

If an officer can establish “arguable probable cause” to arrest the plaintiff, then he is entitled to qualified immunity. Williams, 269 F.3d at 781 . … “A plaintiff seeking to defeat the assertion of qualified immunity must establish that the law concerning the plaintiffs asserted right was clearly established at the time the challenged conduct occurred.” Kog er v.

Tafler v. District of Columbia

539 F. Supp. 2d 385 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 27, 2008

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 would … The Court now turns to whether the right alleged to have been violated was clearly established.

Montano-Perez v. Durrett Cheese Sales, Inc.

666 F. Supp. 2d 894 · District Court, M.D. Tennessee · Oct 13, 2009

Next, the County Defendants argue that any such rights under the NLRA are not “clearly established,” and, therefore, the County Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. … Also, again, the County Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity. The law that no individual may be arrested without probable cause is clearly established.

Castro v. Melchor

760 F. Supp. 2d 970 · District Court, D. Hawaii · Jan 7, 2011

Further, even if Plaintiff could otherwise establish a medical negligence claim, Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. … An official is entitled to qualified immunity under § 1983 if the official “ ‘does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’ ” Spoklie v.

Tenorio v. Harris

370 F. Supp. 3d 863 · District Court, E.D. Illinois · Mar 27, 2019

Qualified Immunity In arguing for summary judgment, the Defendants did not rely on qualified immunity. … Police officers "are entitled to qualified immunity under § 1983 unless (1) they violated a federal statutory or constitutional right, and (2) the unlawfulness of their conduct was clearly established at the time."

Patrick v. City of Overland Park, Kan.

937 F. Supp. 1491 · District Court, D. Kansas · Jun 21, 1996

Thus defendant is entitled to qualified immunity if plaintiff fails to show that the law was clearly established. See, e.g., Pallottino v. … investigation for his name and address); Medina, 960 F.2d at 1498 (defendant entitled to qualified immunity because plaintiff failed to show it was clearly established that recklessness could give rise to liability under