Case law

Rodriguez v. McGinnis

1 F. Supp. 2d 244 · District Court, S.D. New York · Mar 30, 1998

An officer is entitled to qualified immunity if he establishes either that (1) the challenged conduct did not violate clearly established rights of which a *246 reasonable person would have known, or (2) it was objectively … To establish a qualified immunity defense to an excessive *249 force claim an officer must establish either (1) that the alleged conduct did not violate clearly established rights of which a reasonable person would have known

Margoles v. Wisconsin State Board of Medical Examiners

446 F. Supp. 959 · District Court, W.D. Wisconsin · Feb 23, 1978

If “Yes,” there is no immunity; if “No,” the motion for summary judgment under consideration must be allowed by applying defendants’ qualified immunity as Wisconsin public officials. … This record clearly supports the conclusion that the doctrine of qualified immunity is applicable to all defendants with respect to this suit.

" BD" v. DeBuono

130 F. Supp. 2d 401 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jan 15, 2000

Whether a defendant can enjoy qualified immunity “turns on the ‘objective legal reasonableness’ of the action ... assessed in light of the legal rules that were ‘clearly established’ at the time [the action] *436 was undertaken … For a constitutional right to be “clearly established” for purposes of determining whether an officer is entitled to qualified immunity: [T]he contours of the right must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would

Estate of Casillas v. City of Fresno

342 F. Supp. 3d 990 · District Court, E.D. California · Oct 23, 2018

Qualified Immunity The doctrine 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 which … Rather, "clearly established law must be particularized to the facts of the case." Id.

Lollie v. Johnson

159 F. Supp. 3d 945 · District Court, D. Minnesota · Feb 4, 2016

Qualified immunity protects government officers from § 1983 liability *961 “unless the official’s conduct violates a clearly established constitutional or statutory right of which a reasonable person would have known.” … clearly established at the time of the alleged misconduct. 24 Saucier v.

Williams v. Wicomico County Board of Education

836 F. Supp. 2d 387 · District Court, D. Maryland · Jul 21, 2011

The doctrine of qualified immunity operates when the officials’ “conduct does not violate clearly established constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would know.” Harlow v. … As such, Defendants cannot establish qualified immunity on the face of the Complaint. Last, Defendants challenge the sufficiency of Mr.

Lester v. City of Gilbert

85 F. Supp. 3d 851 · District Court, S.D. West Virginia · Feb 4, 2015

Tupper are entitled to qualified immunity because the Plaintiffs cannot prove that they knowingly violated a clearly established law. … Thus, in asserting a qualified immunity defense, Defendants C.A. Douglas, J.T.

Bisbal-Bultron v. State Insurance Fund Corp.

213 F. Supp. 3d 298 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Feb 25, 2015

The two-step inquiry to determine whether a defendant is entitled to qualified immunity requires in its second prong a determination as to whether the violated right was clearly established at the time that the offending … This second “clearly-established” step, as observed in Hunt v.

Acciardo v. Millennium Securities Corp.

83 F. Supp. 2d 413 · District Court, S.D. New York · Feb 15, 2000

In recent years, courts have overwhelmingly granted Form U-5 statements qualified, rather than absolute, immunity. 8 Qualified immunity serves the- industry purpose while protecting the interests of the employee. … Under a qualified immunity standard, the employee has the opportunity to dissolve the immunity if she can demonstrate that the former employer spoke with malice. See Liberman v.

Santos v. County of Los Angeles Department of Children & Family Services

299 F. Supp. 2d 1070 · District Court, C.D. California · Jan 6, 2004

Government officials performing discretionary functions generally are entitled to qualified immunity if their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would … Thus, this Court finds plaintiff does not have a clearly established liberty interest, and defendant social workers are entitled to qualified immunity on plaintiffs Section 1983 claims.

Jones v. United States

869 F. Supp. 747 · District Court, D. Nebraska · Sep 19, 1994

Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 526 , 105 S.Ct. 2806, 2815 , 86 L.Ed.2d 411 (1985), “[ujnless the plaintiffs allegations state a claim of violation of clearly established law, a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to … Thus, a pleading which merely alleges a tort is insufficient to overcome the defense of qualified immunity; the pleading must allege a violation of a constitutional right which was clearly established at the time the defendant

Williams v. Nice

58 F. Supp. 3d 833 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Sep 30, 2014

immunity because he did not violate clearly established federal law.” … To prevail on her underlying tort claims, Williams “must defeat the presumption of immunity.” Id. The Court adopts its qualified immunity analysis herein as it is equally applicable to a claim of state immunity.

Brannan v. Amato

428 F. Supp. 2d 523 · District Court, E.D. Louisiana · Apr 24, 2006

Qualified Immunity As school board officials, the individual defendants are immune from suit and liability, unless it is shown that they violated Mr. Brannan’s clearly established constitutional rights. … The qualified immunity analysis involves a two-step process. First, the Court examines whether the plaintiff has alleged a violation of a clearly established constitutional right. Shipp v.

Schroeder v. McDonald

823 F. Supp. 750 · District Court, D. Hawaii · Dec 3, 1992

Public officials are entitled to qualified immunity from damages for any conduct that “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. … Under the Harlow test, a public official is only not entitled to qualified immunity if the right violated is clearly established. The policy rationale behind this test is two-fold.

Howard v. Vandiver

731 F. Supp. 1290 · District Court, N.D. Mississippi · Feb 8, 1990

The difficult question to be answered is that of qualified immunity as to the existence of probable cause. … (Officer has burden of proving that there were "extraordinary circumstances” which kept the officer from knowing of clearly established right.)

MENDOZA v. DIXON

District Court, N.D. Florida · Sep 5, 2023

Qualified immunity is a shield from liability for government actors, prohibiting “civil damages for torts committed while performing discretionary duties unless their conduct violates a clearly established statutory or … One way for Plaintiff to show that the law is clearly established is to point to a “broader, clearly established principle [that] should control the novel facts [of the] situation.” Terrell v.

Doran v. Houle

516 F. Supp. 1231 · District Court, D. Montana · Jun 25, 1981

property interest which invokes the due process clause, the defense of qualified immunity as explained in Scheuer v. … In short, qualified immunity is based on reasonable grounds and good-faith belief.

Lightner v. TOWN OF ARITON, AL

902 F. Supp. 1489 · District Court, M.D. Alabama · Aug 17, 1995

Therefore, in order to defeat defendants’ claim for qualified immunity, plaintiff must demonstrate that the defendants’ alleged acts of discrimination during his tenure with the police department violated clearly established … clearly established”).

R.S.S.W., Inc. v. City of Keego Harbor

18 F. Supp. 2d 738 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Sep 23, 1998

standards in light of clearly established law at the time the official acted. … which if true would constitute a violation of clearly established [federal] law.”

Crowe v. County of San Diego

359 F. Supp. 2d 994 · District Court, S.D. California · Feb 28, 2005

, pursuant to which the officer is entitled to qualified immunity if the law was not “clearly established,” i.e., if it would not have been clear to a reasonable officer that his conduct was unlawful under the circumstances … Again, as explained by the Supreme Court most recently in Brosseau , in a case such as this, a plaintiff cannot defeat a summary judgment motion on qualified immunity grounds simply by pointing to case law clearly establishing