Case law

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.

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”

Decker v. Fish

126 F. Supp. 2d 342 · District Court, D. Vermont · Oct 25, 2000

Qualified Immunity With respect to Decker’s excessive force, assault and battery claims stemming from the incidents on August 9, 1997, defendants Fish and Hill raise the defense of qualified immunity. … “A defense of qualified immunity is established if ‘(a) the defendants’ action did not violate clearly established law, or (b) it was objectively reasonable for the defendant to believe that his action did not violate such

Copson v. Hephner

District Court, S.D. West Virginia · Mar 30, 2021

“Qualified immunity attaches when an official's conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known … officer had violated the son’s clearly established Fourth Amendment rights.

Blue Ridge Public Safety, Inc. v. Ashe

712 F. Supp. 2d 440 · District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Apr 30, 2010

If a potential violation is shown, the next step is to ask whether the right was clearly established. … Qualified immunity is abrogated only when the right that the officer is alleged to have violated was a “clearly established” right at the time of the violation.

Verney v. Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission

881 F. Supp. 145 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 27, 1995

The test for qualified immunity was set forth by the Supreme Court in Harlow v. … “However, a motion to dismiss based on the defense of qualified 'immunity will prevail only if the actor’s immunity ié clear from the face of the complaint.” Roberts v.

Jones v. Lafferty

173 F. Supp. 3d 493 · District Court, E.D. Kentucky · Mar 29, 2016

[R. 34-1 at pp. 3-5] Lafferty *495 further contends that he is entitled to qualified immunity because as a.parolee Jones had no clearly established right prohibiting the warrantless search of 'his home. … Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 243-44 , 129 S.Ct. 808 , 172 L.Ed.2d 565 (2009) (“An officer conducting a search is entitled to qualified immunity where clearly established law does not show that the search violated the Fourth Amendment

Prison Legal News v. Babeu

933 F. Supp. 2d 1188 · District Court, D. Arizona · Mar 20, 2013

Because the blanket ban violated clearly established constitutional law of which a reasonable officer should know, no qualified immunity attaches to the conduct at issue. … Qualified immunity does not attach to their conduct because the rights they violated were clearly established at the time.

Layshock Ex Rel. Layshock v. Hermitage School District

496 F. Supp. 2d 587 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 10, 2007

Plaintiffs further contend that the Court should deny qualified immunity to the individually-named Defendants because the relevant law is clearly established. Pursuant to Saucier v. … A right is “clearly established” for purposes of qualified immunity when its contours are sufficiently clear that reasonable officials would know that their actions violated that right. Williams v.

Mohamed v. Tattum

380 F. Supp. 2d 1214 · District Court, D. Kansas · Aug 4, 2005

to bar plaintiffs suit; (2) the doctrine of qualified immunity applies to bar plaintiffs suit; (3) principles established in Heck v. … established law of which a reasonable person would be aware, the Court grants summary judgment in favor of defendant based on the doctrine of qualified immunity.

Sistemas Urbanos, Inc. v. Lugo Ramos

413 F. Supp. 2d 96 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Feb 9, 2006

Qualified Immunity “[Government officials performing discretionary functions generally *103 are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … In this case, the qualified immunity analysis cannot continue beyond the first prong.

Roberts v. White

698 F. Supp. 2d 457 · District Court, D. Delaware · Mar 26, 2010

(D.I. 36 at 4) Whether Murray is entitled to qualified immunity requires a two-step inquiry: whether his acts violated a constitutional or statutory right and, if they did, whether that right was clearly established at the … Because plaintiff has failed to meet his burden of showing a genuine issue of material fact as to the first prong of qualified immunity, there is no need to engage in a further qualified immunity analysis.

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.

Sullivan v. Bornemann

244 F. Supp. 3d 868 · District Court, E.D. Wisconsin · Apr 28, 2003

Qualified Immunity Law enforcement officers per: forming discretionary functions are generally entitled to qualified immunity and are “shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly … Accordingly, I find that the officers are entitled to qualified immunity on plaintiffs federal claims, whether on excessive force grounds or on due process grounds, as there is no clearly established right to be free from

Stevenson v. Jones

254 F. Supp. 3d 1080 · District Court, N.D. California · May 30, 2017

The defense 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 a reasonable … To determine whether a government official is entitled to qualified immunity, courts must consider (1) whether the official’s conduct violated a constitutional right, and (2) whether that right was “clearly established” at

Huss v. Rogerson

271 F. Supp. 2d 1118 · District Court, S.D. Iowa · Aug 5, 2003

Qualified Immunity. Defendants next argue that since they are entitled to qualified immunity on all other claims, the court should dismiss Huss’ case in its entirety. … Qualified immunity protects state actors from civil liability when “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Reece v.

Jennings v. University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

240 F. Supp. 2d 492 · District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Nov 13, 2002

Dorrance is entitled to qualified immunity. 8 Qualified immunity protects government officials from liability under § 1983 so long as the conduct of the official “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … In regard to the qualified immunity claims of Defendants Hooker, Ehringhaus, Baddour, Miller, and Swofford, supervisory liability was clearly established under § 1983 at the time of their alleged conduct.

Gallo v. District of Columbia

District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 7, 2026

Qualified immunity similarly insulates the Administrator from suit. … Qualified immunity shields state and local officials from damages claims unless they (1) violated a right (2) that was clearly established at the time. Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982).

Owens v. Board of Regents of Texas Southern University

953 F. Supp. 781 · District Court, S.D. Texas · Jul 3, 1996

In examining an official’s claim of qualified immunity, courts follow a two-step process. The first step is to ascertain whether the plaintiff alleges “the violation of a clearly established constitutional right.” … Even if an official’s conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right, he is entitled to qualified immunity if the conduct was objectively reasonable. Salas v. Carpenter, 980 F.2d at 310 .

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.