Case law

Koutny v. Martin

530 F. Supp. 2d 84 · District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 31, 2007

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 a reasonable person would have known … “the sometimes nuanced issues involved with qualified immunity” becomes “unnecessary.”

Bailey v. Pacheco

108 F. Supp. 2d 1214 · District Court, D. New Mexico · Apr 6, 2000

Immunity, Defendant Effie Osborne’s Motion for Summary Judgment on Qualified Immunity, and Defendant Maureen Grindell’s Motion for Summary Judgment and Qualified Immunity are well taken and will be granted and that Defendant … and Qualified Immunity (Docket No. 416), filed July 6,1999 GRANTED.

Hummel v. McCotter

28 F. Supp. 2d 1322 · District Court, D. Utah · Dec 2, 1998

Because Plaintiff has failed to show that Defendants violated his clearly established rights to procedural or substantive due process, Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. … Plaintiff asserts further that the DOC Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity because this right was clearly established.

Kaminsky v. Schriro

243 F. Supp. 3d 221 · District Court, D. Connecticut · Mar 20, 2017

The doctrine of qualified immunity shields “government officials performing discretionary functions”' from civil damages liability as long as “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … Vega, 371 F.3d 110, 117 (2d Cir. 2004) (“[Qualified immunity protects that officer unless his performance was in violation of clearly established law, or was plainly incompetent.

Keehner v. Dunn

409 F. Supp. 2d 1266 · District Court, D. Kansas · Dec 16, 2005

such as qualified immunity. 25 Upon a defendant’s assertion of a qualified immunity defense in a summary judgment motion, plaintiff has a two-part burden. … clearly established such that a reasonable person in the defendant’s *1272 position would have known the conduct violated the right.” 26 The issue of immunity is a legal one and the Court may not avoid it by framing it as

Santiago v. City of Vineland

107 F. Supp. 2d 512 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Aug 2, 2000

The Defendants contend that even if Santiago can establish that they did not act with probable cause, they are entitled to qualified immunity on Santiago’s federal claim. … Because the qualified immunity analysis set forth in the brief of Romano and Gallo clearly contends that qualified immunity is available to the police officer defendants, and does not mention Romano and Gallo in their positions

Oliver v. Cuttler

968 F. Supp. 83 · District Court, E.D. New York · May 24, 1997

Qualified immunity Government actors who perform discretionary functions are protected from liability for civil damages where their conduct does not violate a clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … Even where the plaintiffs rights and the scope of the official’s permissible conduct are clearly established, the qualified immunity defense protects a governmental actor if it was “objectively reasonable” for the actor to

Adams v. Ohio Univ.

300 F. Supp. 3d 983 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Mar 12, 2018

Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, government officials are not liable for civil damages "insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … was 'clearly established' at the time of defendant's alleged misconduct."

Cullen v. Janvrin et al.

2015 DNH 212 · District Court, D. New Hampshire · Nov 19, 2015

In sum, Supreme Court precedent entitles police officers to qualified immunity for constitutional violations unless the applicable law is so clearly established that only an incompetent officer would fail to understand … Accordingly, Chief Janvrin and Sergeant Raymond are entitled to qualified immunity with respect to Cullen’s failure to investigate claim.15 14Even if clearly established law in 2011 obligated police officers who

Whitley v. NEW MEXICO CHILDREN, YOUTH & FAMILIES

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 Plaintiff's ง 1983 claims.

Erickson v. Board of County Commissioners of Delta

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 .

Dudley v. Eden

49 F. Supp. 2d 581 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · May 4, 1999

assessed in light of the legal rules that were ‘clearly established’ at the time.” … For purposes of qualified-immunity analysis, it is first important to note that Dudley has alleged a violation of his clearly established right to be free from the use of excessive force.

Doe v. Patton

381 F. Supp. 2d 595 · District Court, E.D. Kentucky · Jan 14, 2005

Qualified Official Immunity Salyer claims that he is also protected by qualified official immunity for the state law claims brought against him in his individual capacity. … Second, we consider whether the violation involved a clearly established constitutional right of which a reasonable person would have known.

Fireman's Fund Ins. Co. v. City of Lodi, Cal.

41 F. Supp. 2d 1100 · District Court, E.D. California · Feb 25, 1999

First, the court must determine whether the law governing the officials’ conduct was clearly established at the time the officials acted. If the law was not clearly established, qualified immunity applies. … If the law was clearly established, the court must determine whether reasonable officials would have believed that their actions were lawful. If the court so finds, the officials are entitled to qualified immunity.

Calhoun v. Thomas

360 F. Supp. 2d 1264 · District Court, M.D. Alabama · Mar 11, 2005

As established by the Supreme Court in Harloiv, the test for qualified immunity hinges on whether the officials’ conduct was objectively reasonable in light of established law. … purposes, and now turns to the more pivotal aspects of the qualified immunity inquiry; that is, whether Calhoun has adequately alleged violation of a constitutional right, and whether that right was clearly established at

Johnson Ex Rel. Estate of Cano v. Holmes

377 F. Supp. 2d 1051 · District Court, D. New Mexico · Sep 30, 2004

STANDARD FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT WHEN A DEFENDANT HAS RAISED THE QUALIFIED IMMUNITY DEFENSE Qualified immunity “protects government officials from personal liability unless their actions violate clearly established law of which … Lindsey, 334 F.3d 1246, 1248 (11th Cir.2003)(holding that foster children have a clearly established fourteenth amendment liberty interest in physical safety)(citing Taylor v.

Boston Taxi Owners Ass'n v. City of Boston

187 F. Supp. 3d 339 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · May 20, 2016

While the Commissioner has not ■ convinced the Court that he is likely to succeed in his appeal with respect to qualified' immunity, the constitutional issue in this case is neither elementary nor well-established. … Defendant will suffer no substantial harm from proceeding directly with the case rather than waiting for the qualified immunity issue to be resolved on appeal.

Falk v. County of Suffolk

781 F. Supp. 146 · District Court, E.D. New York · Dec 24, 1991

Qualified Immunity All defendants have moved for summary judgment on all claims on the ground that they are protected by the doctrine of qualified immunity. … The phrase “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights” is dispositive here.

Brust v. City of Worcester

947 F. Supp. 2d 143 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Sep 27, 2012

a defendant to file a late motion raising the defense of qualified immunity has the potential to cause unfair prejudice and costly delay. … Although defendants moved for the ruling on qualified immunity jointly, the only question presented was whether defendant Need-ham is entitled to qualified immunity. .

Moore v. City of Oakland

242 F. Supp. 3d 891 · District Court, N.D. California · Mar 16, 2017

Because Plaintiff cannot show that he had a clearly established right to have DNA evidence tested at some earlier point in time, Officer Tirapelli is entitled to qualified immunity on Plaintiffs Section 1983 claim against … Plaintiffs sole argument in opposition to qualified immunity is a non-starter: he contends that it is “clearly established well before- 2012 that a party is not a ‘driver’ of a vehicle unless they are driving the vehicle”