Case law

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.

Sorey v. Kellett

673 F. Supp. 817 · District Court, S.D. Mississippi · Oct 15, 1987

Plaintiff asserts that dismissal on the grounds of qualified immunity is premature as there has been no discovery and qualified immunity presents factual issues. … as a plea of qualified immunity. 9 .

Robinson v. Catlett

725 F. Supp. 2d 1203 · District Court, S.D. California · Jul 19, 2010

Qualified Immunity Alternatively, Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity on these claims. … State officials are entitled to qualified immunity if “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v.

McCall v. Crosthwait

590 F. Supp. 2d 1337 · District Court, M.D. Alabama · Dec 23, 2008

Under qualified immunity, government officials acting pursuant to a discretionary function 5 are protected from civil liability if the conduct does not violate “ ‘clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of … The ‘“threshold”’ question- of whether the officer violated a constitutional- right must be resolved before considering whether the violation was clearly established.

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.”

H.M. ex rel. M.M. v. Board of Education

117 F. Supp. 3d 992 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Aug 3, 2015

Qualified immunity of Defendants Gasper and Bogaert Qualified immunity shields “government officials performing discretionary functions ... from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly … That right is clearly established in the Sixth Circuit. S.S. v. E. Ky. Univ., 532 F.3d 445, 457 (6th Cir.2008). .Accordingly, the grant of qualified immunity is not appropriate at this early stage. B.

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.

Hicks v. Bexar County, Tex.

973 F. Supp. 653 · District Court, W.D. Texas · Jun 13, 1997

A party seeking damages from an official asserting Harlow qualified immunity bears the burden of overcoming that defense. 89 Once a government official or employee has asserted qualified immunity and established that the … the lawfulness of the defendant’s actions, the defendant is entitled to qualified immunity. 103 Whether the conduct of which the plaintiff complains violated clearly established law is essentially a legal *674 question.

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

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 .

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.

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.

Kaufmann v. Saari

889 F. Supp. 1105 · District Court, E.D. Wisconsin · Jun 6, 1995

Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … a violation of clearly established law. 472 U.S. at 526 , 105 S.Ct. at 2815-16 .

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.

Losch v. Borough of Parkesburg

566 F. Supp. 282 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 24, 1983

Police officials acting under the color of state law are government officials who perform discretionary functions and are therefore entitled to qualified immunity. Scheuer v. … The fact that the Assistant District Attorney moved to withdraw the charges at the final hearing does not of itself establish malice. 6 “If the law at that time was not clearly established, an official could not reasonably

Rodriguez v. McClenning

399 F. Supp. 2d 228 · District Court, S.D. New York · Apr 22, 2005

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity protects 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 … In his motion for summary judgment, McClenning argued that he is entitled to summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity because sexual assault is not a clearly established Eighth Amendment violation.

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.