Case law

Rought v. Porter

965 F. Supp. 989 · District Court, W.D. Michigan · Dec 26, 1996

Therefore, defendant Porter is not entitled to summary judgment on the issue of qualified immunity. … The Court is forced under Hunter and other Supreme Court case law to resolve the issue of qualified immunity now.

Ruiz Rivera v. Holder

666 F. Supp. 2d 82 · District Court, District of Columbia · Oct 29, 2009

] conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … A qualified immunity analysis requires that the Court consider ''whether the alleged facts show that the individual’s conduct violated a statutory or constitutional right, and ... whether that right was clearly established

Rivera-Quinones v. Rivera-Gonzalez

397 F. Supp. 2d 334 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Oct 28, 2005

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY Qualified immunity shields officials from having to pay for damages resulting from violations of § 1983 provided certain particular circumstances are present. … Id. *345 Thus, “qualified immunity remains available to defendants who demonstrate that they acted objectively reasonably in applying clearly established law to the specific facts they faced.” Burke v.

Broadnax v. ABF Freight Systems, Inc.

180 F.R.D. 343 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jul 31, 1998

ANALYSIS The burden here is on the defendant to establish that the work product doctrine immunizes the documents at issue from discovery. U.S. v. … These are clearly course-of-business, in-house considerations that would be made in the wake of any trucking company accident.

Costa v. City of New York

546 F. Supp. 2d 117 · District Court, S.D. New York · Feb 29, 2008

Fox seeks dismissal also on the ground of qualified immunity, and both defendants seek dismissal of so much of the claim as purports to allege constructive discharge. … Qualified Immunity Defendant Chief Fox seeks dismissal on the ground of qualified immunity.

Gantt v. Whitaker

203 F. Supp. 2d 503 · District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Feb 26, 2002

Qualified immunity shields public officials from liability for civil damages to the extent their conduct does not violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known … Consequently, Whitesides is entitled to qualified immunity.

Guglielmo v. Montgomery Cnty.

387 F. Supp. 3d 798 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · May 28, 2019

Qualified immunity shields public officials from civil liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 unless their actions violate clearly established rights "of which a reasonable person would have known." Harlow v. … The second inquiry in the qualified immunity analysis is whether the constitutional right was clearly established. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Guglielmo, it was. If the jury determines Sgt.

Atcherson v. Siebenmann

458 F. Supp. 526 · District Court, S.D. Iowa · Sep 7, 1978

The doctrine of a qualified immunity for officers of the State was fully established in Scheuer v. … The doctrine of qualified immunity is not available to the Defendant, Judge John Siebenmann, because his termination of the Plaintiff was caused by her exercise of a clearly established constitutional right; the Defendant

Martin v. Texas Department of Protective & Regulatory Services

405 F. Supp. 2d 775 · District Court, S.D. Texas · Dec 16, 2005

The Qualified Immunity Standard “Qualified immunity protects officials in the course of performance of their discretionary duties unless their conduct violates a ‘clearly established [federal] statutory or constitutional … immunity, based on a claim that the right to family integrity was not clearly established, will fail.

BRYANT v. POTTSGROVE SCHOOL DISTRICT

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 19, 2025

Lucas’ argument flips the qualified immunity burden. Qualified immunity is not, as Lucas characterizes it, a “shield” that Bryant must “remove” by pleading a violation of clearly law established law. … Nor is “qualified immunity” a “a talismanic phrase that relieves Defendants of their burden to show that their actions did not violate . . . clearly established constitutional [or statutory] rights.” Jennings v.

Sisney v. Reisch

533 F. Supp. 2d 952 · District Court, D. South Dakota · Feb 6, 2008

Serrell, 244 F.3d 628 , 632 (8th Cir.2001): Qualified immunity protects a governmental official from suit when his “conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … so, ... whether that right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation.”

Tyson v. Willauer

290 F. Supp. 2d 278 · District Court, D. Connecticut · Nov 4, 2003

However, qualified immunity shields them from liability under § 1983 “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … Thus, a government actor performing discretionary tasks is entitled to qualified immunity from suit if either (1) his actions did not violate clearly established law; or (2) it was objectively reasonable for him to believe

Waterman v. Batton

294 F. Supp. 2d 709 · District Court, D. Maryland · Dec 11, 2003

Clearly Established Right Although the plaintiffs have proffered evidence of a violation of a constitutional right, the defendant officers nonetheless are entitled to qualified immunity if that right was not clearly established … The plaintiffs have proffered sufficient evidence to establish a violation of Josh Waterman’s Fourth Amendment rights, and the defendant officers are not entitled to qualified immunity because these rights were clearly established

Williams v. Atkins

333 F. Supp. 2d 209 · District Court, S.D. New York · Aug 27, 2004

, the Defendant police officers are entitled to qualified immunity. … The Defendants concede that government officials are not entitled to a defense of qualified immunity for claims arising from the performance of discretionary functions if the alleged conduct violates “clearly established

Muniz Souffront v. Alvarado

115 F. Supp. 2d 237 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Sep 14, 2000

Qualified Immunity Penultimately, Defendants assert that they are entitled to qualified immunity for actions taken in their individual capacities. … Qualified immunity is an affirmative defense shielding public officials from civil damages so long as their conduct does not violate any clearly-established statutory or constitutional right of which a reasonable person would

Adams v. City of New York

226 F. Supp. 3d 261 · District Court, S.D. New York · Dec 22, 2016

“Qualified immunity protects public officials performing discretionary functions from personal liability in a civil suit for damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … An officer “is entitled to qualified immunity against a suit for false arrest if he can establish that he had arguable probable cause to arrest the plaintiff.” Garcia v.

Doe v. South Iron R-1 School Dist.

453 F. Supp. 2d 1093 · District Court, E.D. Missouri · Sep 5, 2006

Even if they did so out of some hope that they could challenge the clearly-established law by their actions, qualified immunity would still not apply. … Qualified immunity does not protect government officials who knowingly disregard clearly-established law, even if they do so out of a good faith belief that the law should be changed.

Jacobsen v. Lambers

888 F. Supp. 1088 · District Court, D. Kansas · May 9, 1995

Qualified Immunity Defendants claim the affirmative defense of qualified immunity from plaintiffs claim under Section 1983. Qualified immunity is sometimes referred to as “good faith immunity.” Quezada v. … This means that even if plaintiffs rights were in fact violated, defendants are entitled to qualified immunity if officials of reasonable competence would disagree as to whether their conduct violated plaintiffs clearly established

Luck v. Mount Airy 1, LLC

901 F. Supp. 2d 547 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 4, 2012

Qualified immunity Commonwealth Defendants argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity. … clearly established .... ” Brown v.

Matthews v. High Island Independent School District

991 F. Supp. 840 · District Court, S.D. Texas · Jan 22, 1998

Qualified Immunity Finally, Chiaravalloti argues for dismissal of the claims against him on the grounds of qualified immunity. … Since Plaintiffs’ allegations are sufficient to support a violation of clearly established law, Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Chiaravalloti on qualified immunity grounds is DENIED. III.