Case law

Lane v. District of Columbia

211 F. Supp. 3d 150 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 30, 2016

officers is barred by qualified immunity. … “[Qualified immunity shields police officers from civil liability so long as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”

Riggs v. City of Fort Worth

229 F. Supp. 2d 572 · District Court, N.D. Texas · Feb 1, 2002

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AS TO QUALIFIED IMMUNITY MEANS, District Judge. … Mendoza is entitled to qualified immunity. 16 Accordingly, for the reasons stated above, the Court concludes that defendant Mendoza’s motion for summary judgment as to qualified immunity is GRANTED.

Lafond v. City of Manchester

2004 DNH 095 · District Court, D. New Hampshire · Jun 23, 2004

To assess the defense of qualified immunity the court asks “(1) whether the facts as alleged make out a constitutional violation; 8 (2) whether that right was clearly established; and ( … In the absence of facts alleging a Fourteenth Amendment violation and clearly established federal law governing that claim, the mayor is entitled to qualified immunity on Lafond’s Fourteenth Amendment claim.

Willis v. Blevins

966 F. Supp. 2d 646 · District Court, E.D. Virginia · Aug 16, 2013

“Government officials performing discretionary functions are entitled to qualified immunity from liability for civil damages to the extent that ‘their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … “To escape dismissal of a complaint on qualified immunity grounds, a plaintiff must (1) allege a violation of a right (2) that is clearly established at the time of the violation.” Evans v.

Lowry v. WATSON CHAPEL SCHOOL DIST.

508 F. Supp. 2d 713 · District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Aug 22, 2007

In ruling on qualified immunity, the threshold question is whether, taken in the light most favorable to the party asserting the defense, the facts alleged establish the violation of a constitutional right. Saucier v. … Because qualified immunity is immunity from suit, not merely immunity from damages, the issue must be resolved at the earliest stage possible. Id. at 200-01, 121 S.Ct. 2151 .

Conley v. Ryan

92 F. Supp. 3d 502 · District Court, S.D. West Virginia · Mar 13, 2015

The burden of establishing that absolute immunity is applicable in' a given situation falls on the party seeking immunity. Burns v. … Sparks has not invoked qualified immunity in his motion to dismiss.

SAYED v. Profitt

743 F. Supp. 2d 1217 · District Court, D. Colorado · Sep 27, 2010

Profitt asserts the defense of qualified immunity. … A plaintiff must show that he or she had a constitutional right that was infringed (the “violation prong”), and that such right was clearly established at the time of the alleged infringement (the “clearly established prong

Kar v. Rumsfeld

580 F. Supp. 2d 80 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 26, 2008

Kar’s problem in this suit, however, is that his right to a probable cause hearing was not clearly established with sufficient specificity to overcome the defendants’ qualified immunity. … CONCLUSION Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity because they did not violate any of Kar’s clearly established constitutional rights.

Hodges v. Jones

873 F. Supp. 737 · District Court, N.D. New York · Jan 4, 1995

Qualified Immunity Defendants argue in their motion for summary judgment that they are immune from liability under the doctrine of qualified immunity. … Qualified immunity “shields public officials from liability for their discretionary acts that do ‘not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’ ” Hathaway

FELIX-TORRES v. Graham

521 F. Supp. 2d 157 · District Court, N.D. New York · Oct 17, 2007

E.Qualified Immunity Defendants argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity. … Governmental officials “are entitled to qualified immunity if (1) their actions did not violate clearly established law, or (2) it was objectively reasonable for them to believe that their actions did not violate such law

Jordan v. Town of Pratt

886 F. Supp. 555 · District Court, S.D. West Virginia · May 24, 1995

Doory, 14 F.3d 993, 995 (4th Cir.1994) our Court of Appeals discussed generally the application of qualified immunity as follows: “Qualified immunity shields a governmental official from liability for civil monetary damages … Therefore, the Court concludes the law was not clearly established that Mr.

Adorno v. Gonzalez

678 F. Supp. 948 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Dec 31, 1987

Moreover, because the action was clearly unconstitutional at the time of the firing, we conclude that the defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity. … There is therefore no qualified immunity for the defendants. IV.

Sheppard v. Aloisi

384 F. Supp. 2d 478 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Aug 11, 2005

Qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions from liability for civil damages when “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … As detailed above, the constitutional right at issue must be clearly established at the time of the putative violation to negate the protection of the qualified immunity doctrine.

Abrazinski v. DuBois

940 F. Supp. 361 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Aug 16, 1996

In considering whether the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity, the question is whether the rights that underlie his claim were so “clearly established” that the defendants must have known their actions would violate … To overcome the defendants’ objection that they are protected by qualified immunity for their conduct of the disciplinary proceedings, then, the plaintiff must show that it was “clearly established” (i) that it was a violation

Moreno-Perez v. Toledo-Davila

764 F. Supp. 2d 351 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Mar 4, 2011

Qualified Immunity Finally, the defendants assert they are protected by qualified immunity. Qualified immunity is asserted for the “investigative defendants” and the supervisory defendants. (Docket No. 147, at 24-27.) … “Qualified immunity affords limited protection to public officials faced with liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 , ‘[i]nsofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which

Cromeans v. Morgan Keegan & Co.

1 F. Supp. 3d 994 · District Court, W.D. Missouri · Feb 24, 2014

In light of the qualifying language used in the Blue Sky Law’s section on definitions, however, Ba-chtel does not support a finding that sovereign immunity has been waived. … Clearly Section 213.055 RSMo was meant to apply to the state and its political subdivisions.

Watts v. Williams

District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 30, 2009

Qualified Immunity is Immunity from Suit "[G]ovemment officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established … By definition, qualified immunity is not absolute. Rather, it "is applicable unless the official's conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right." Pearson v. Callahan, _ U.S. _, _, 129 S.

Burns v. City of Redwood City

737 F. Supp. 2d 1047 · District Court, N.D. California · Aug 25, 2010

Resolution of the motion involves two questions: whether the force used was excessive, and, if so, whether the three *1058 police officers are nevertheless entitled to qualified immunity either because the law was not clearly … 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

Frye v. Police Dept. of Kansas City, Missouri

260 F. Supp. 2d 796 · District Court, W.D. Missouri · Apr 17, 2003

“[T]o withstand a motion for summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds, a civil rights plaintiff must (1) assert a violation of a constitutional right; (2) demonstrate that the alleged right is clearly established; and … To *799 borrow his analysis, Plaintiffs “had a clearly established right under the Fourth Amendment not to be arrested unless there was probable cause [and had] a clearly established right to express [their] views about abortion

K.L. v. Southeast Delco School District

828 F. Supp. 1192 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 27, 1993

Qualified Immunity In C.M., I relied on Stoneking in holding that the defendants were not entitled to qualified immunity. … If the rights were clearly established by the late 1970’s or early 1980’s, as those cases held, then obviously they were clearly established by 1987. Defendants argue that C.M.