Case law

Mohil v. Glick

842 F. Supp. 2d 1072 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Feb 1, 2012

Immunity But Mohils have cleared that state actor hurdle only to fall at the next: the need to avoid foundering on the shoals of immunity — not just qualified immunity, but absolute immunity. 8 This opinion turns then to … Proc. 12(b)(6), (c)) or *1078 shown (see Rules 50, 56) make out a violation of a constitutional right” and also “whether the right at issue was ‘clearly established’ at the time of defendant’s alleged misconduct.”

Koller v. Hilderbrand

933 F. Supp. 2d 272 · District Court, D. Connecticut · Mar 19, 2013

The right to be free from unreasonably destructive searches is clearly established. See Foreman v. … Their, qualified immunity claim thus turns on issues of disputed fact, and the Second Circuit has made clear that “[s]ummary judgment on qualified immunity grounds is not appropriate when there are facts in dispute that are

Parson v. Phelps

193 F. Supp. 3d 353 · District Court, D. Delaware · Jun 20, 2016

Turning to defendants’ motion to dismiss based on qualified immunity, “[t]he doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct *360 does not violate clearly … For the above reasons, the court will deny defendants’ motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim and on the grounds of qualified immunity (D.I. 16).

Mutter v. Salem

District Court, D. New Hampshire · Nov 14, 1996

immunity protects "government officials performing discretionary functions . . . from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … The qualified immunity analysis in this circuit is two-pronged: (1) "the constitutional right asserted by the plaintiff [must be] clearly established at the time of the alleged violation," and (2) "a reasonable official

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).

Glidewell v. Town of Gantt

176 F. Supp. 2d 1263 · District Court, M.D. Alabama · Dec 10, 2001

An official is entitled to qualified immunity if he is performing discretionary functions and his actions do “ ‘not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known … When qualified immunity is asserted as a defense, a court must first determine whether the violation of a constitutional right is asserted, then determine whether that right was clearly established. See Wilson v.

Sisneros v. Fisher

685 F. Supp. 2d 1188 · District Court, D. New Mexico · Jan 13, 2010

Qualified immunity shields government officials from liability where “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Pearson v. … Once the plaintiff has established the inference that the defendant’s conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right, a qualified immunity defense generally fails. See Cannon v.

Shifrin v. Wilson

412 F. Supp. 1282 · District Court, District of Columbia · May 12, 1976

Having established that Wilson is entitled to the “good faith and reasonableness” qualified immunity, the Court turns to the question of whether, under those standards, his liability can be determined on plaintiff’s motion … Instead, as this Court held, again pursuant to established precedent, a “good faith and reasonableness” qualified immunity is appropriate for the officials involved.

Bevill v. UAB Walker College

62 F. Supp. 2d 1259 · District Court, N.D. Alabama · Aug 17, 1999

But government officials performing discretionary functions generally are granted a qualified immunity and are “shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … Talladega City Board of Education, 115 F.3d 821 , 825 n. 4 (11th Cir.1997) (en banc), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 118 S.Ct. 412 , 139 L.Ed.2d 315 (1997), noted that “the law can be ‘clearly-established’ for qualified immunity

Felders v. Bairett

885 F. Supp. 2d 1191 · District Court, D. Utah · Aug 7, 2012

“Qualified immunity shields government officials from liability for civil damages” as long “as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have … WELL ESTABLISHED CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT To defeat qualified immunity, the plaintiffs must further show that the constitutional right at issue was clearly established at the time of the violation.

Clarke v. Sweeney

312 F. Supp. 2d 277 · District Court, D. Connecticut · Mar 30, 2004

Even where the plaintiffs federal rights and the scope of the official’s permissible conduct are clearly established, the qualified immunity defense protects a government actor if it was objectively reasonable for him to … Sweeney has also asserted qualified immunity as to the equal protection claim, but because evidence of causation to support this claim is so clearly lacking, the Court need not reach the issue of qualified immunity. 26 .Although

Stein v. County of Nassau

642 F. Supp. 2d 135 · District Court, E.D. New York · Jul 23, 2009

To establish qualified immunity, defendants must “show either that their conduct did not violate clearly established rights of which a reasonable person would have known, or that it was objectively reasonable to believe that … Stein’s health care agent, the Individual Defendants did not violate any “clearly established law,” and are thus entitled to qualified immunity. See Sajford Unified School Dist. No. 1 v.

Vance v. Rumsfeld

694 F. Supp. 2d 957 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Mar 5, 2010

Qualified Immunity Rumsfeld argues that he is entitled to qualified immunity on all claims, including Count I. … The court determined that Rumsfeld and other high-ranking military officials were entitled to qualified immunity because they had not violated any clearly established right. Id. at 108-109 .

Dye v. City of Warren

367 F. Supp. 2d 1175 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Apr 22, 2005

Reasonableness of Force, Constitutional Deprivation and Qualified Immunity with Regard to Chief Mandopoulos. Mr. … Dye did not violate a clearly established constitutional right and, therefore, is shielded by qualified immunity.

Riley v. Kurtz

893 F. Supp. 709 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Jun 6, 1995

Qualified Immunity Defendant also contends that he is entitled to qualified immunity. … The key issue in analyzing a claim of qualified immunity is whether the defendant’s alleged conduct violated “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”

Ms. K Ex Rel. S.B. v. City of South Portland

407 F. Supp. 2d 290 · District Court, D. Maine · Jan 3, 2006

Officials enjoy such immunity so long as their conduct did "not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. … The Court finds no such violation of clearly established rights in this case. 7 . The Court’s qualified immunity analysis is also identical.

Pacheco v. Hopmeier

770 F. Supp. 2d 1174 · District Court, D. New Mexico · Mar 9, 2011

Qualified immunity is unavailable where officers have violated a “clearly established” constitutional right of which a “reasonable person” would have known. See Hope v. … Qualified immunity involves a two-part test: (a) whether the officer committed a constitutional violation and (b) if so, whether the right was clearly established. See id.; Pearson v.

Steigmann v. DEMOCRATIC PARTY OF ILLINOIS

406 F. Supp. 2d 975 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Dec 20, 2005

Qualified Immunity “Qualified immunity shields government officials who are performing discretionary functions from liability for civil damages ‘insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … In addition, Sheedy would be entitled to qualified immunity because Plaintiff did not establish that the alleged constitutional violation here was clearly established when Sheedy effected the non-renewal of Plaintiffs contract

Perry v. Pamlico County

88 F. Supp. 3d 518 · District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Feb 18, 2015

Qualified immunity provides 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 … rules that were clearly established at the time it was taken.”

Morgan v. Barry

785 F. Supp. 187 · District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 21, 1992

Third, “because the officer may have a qualified immunity from liability for his conduct ... the complaint must demonstrate that the officer’s conduct violated a constitutional right ... that was clearly established at the … District of Columbia, 932 F.2d 10 (D.C.Cir.1991) (finding qualified immunity because officers were not under a clearly established constitutional obligation to obtain medical care for drug overdose victim). 20 .