Case law

Lightner v. Wenderlich

271 F. Supp. 3d 445 · District Court, W.D. New York · Sep 26, 2017

Qualified Immunity Government officials, like Defendant in this case, are generally protected from civil liability “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … rights were clearly established at the timé of the alleged violation.

Peterson v. City of Pine River

36 F. Supp. 3d 843 · District Court, D. Minnesota · Jul 29, 2014

and (2) the right was clearly established at the time of the deprivation.’ ” Walton v. … The second exception — for official acts done with malice — is foreclosed by the qualified immunity analysis above.

Tate v. West Norriton Township

545 F. Supp. 2d 480 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 31, 2008

The qualified immunity defense may shield Patrolman Delaney from liability to the extent his actions came in the line of duty and were not in violation of “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a … to the qualified immunity defense if, in violating the plaintiffs clearly established right, the officer “made a reasonable mistake about what the law requires.” 36 The availability of the defense is a question of law, to

DeFelice Ex Rel. DeFelice v. Warner

511 F. Supp. 2d 241 · District Court, D. Connecticut · Sep 28, 2007

In evaluating a claim of qualified immunity, the threshold inquiry is whether the plaintiffs allegations, if true, establish a constitutional violation. Hope v. … Summary judgment based on qualified immunity is appropriate if “the law did not put the [government official] on notice that his conduct would be clearly unlawful.”

Omar v. Casterline

414 F. Supp. 2d 582 · District Court, W.D. Louisiana · Feb 8, 2006

Qualified Immunity In this case, the defendants have pleaded qualified immunity to both the constitutional and statutory allegations made by Omar. … Qualified immunity provides protection for officials performing discretionary functions against “civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable

Sanseviro v. New York

158 F. Supp. 3d 131 · District Court, E.D. New York · Jan 25, 2016

Government officials exercising discretionary functions are entitled to qualified immunity in a § 1983 action “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … Moreover, the individual County Defendants’ and Investigator Franke also assert the defense of qualified immunity.

Williams v. Wright

432 F. Supp. 732 · District Court, D. Oregon · Aug 10, 1976

All federal defendants are entitled to dismissal or summary judgment based on the principle of qualified official immunity. The established and disputed facts are set forth first by way of background. … QUALIFIED OFFICIAL IMMUNITY The federal defendants contend, first, that the principles set forth in Barr v.

Cantrell v. White

178 F. Supp. 3d 1308 · District Court, N.D. Georgia · Apr 5, 2016

The Defendant then argues that he is entitled to qualified immunity. As noted above, White was clearly acting within his discretionary authority when he arrested Cantrell. … Accordingly, the Plaintiffs have the burden of showing that Cantrell’s clearly established rights were violated. “A plaintiff can demonstrate that a right was clearly established in a few ways.

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.

Sosa v. Hames

581 F. Supp. 2d 1254 · District Court, S.D. Florida · Oct 7, 2008

Therefore, the burden shifts to Sosa to demonstrate that Defendants violated a clearly established statutory or constitutional right to overcome the qualified immunity defense. … a violation was clearly established.

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.

McCabe v. MacAulay

450 F. Supp. 2d 928 · District Court, N.D. Iowa · Sep 1, 2006

Second, the court must determine “whether the right was clearly established.” Id. If the answer to either inquiry is “no,” then *935 the Individual Federal Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. See id. … has violated a “clearly established” right.

Yang v. Murphy

796 F. Supp. 1245 · District Court, D. Minnesota · Jun 15, 1992

Qualified Immunity Murphy contends that he is protected by qualified immunity from the claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 . … Murphy notes, correctly, that it is not enough to generally assert that the Fourth Amendment clearly establishes a right to be free from unreasonable seizures, citing Anderson v.

Cahoo v. Sas Inst. Inc.

322 F. Supp. 3d 772 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Mar 2, 2018

Once the qualified immunity defense is raised, "the plaintiff must show that (1) the defendant violated a constitutional right and (2) that right was clearly established." McDonald v. … A state official is entitled to qualified immunity if "a reasonable officer could have believed" that his or her actions were lawful "in light of clearly established law and the information the [officer] possessed."

LeBlanc v. City of Sanford

District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Jun 8, 2021

Plaintiff meets the first prong to defeat Defendants’ assertion of qualified immunity. 2. Was Plaintiff's Right to Due Process Clearly Established? … established, and that they are, therefore, entitled to qualified immunity.

Estate of Barnwell ex rel. Barnwell v. Roane County

103 F. Supp. 3d 892 · District Court, E.D. Tennessee · Apr 9, 2015

The defendants’ qualified immunity defense is unavailing. … Qualified immunity analysis is a two-step process, where the court considers (1) whether the defendant’s action violated a constitutional right; and (2) whether that right was clearly established such that a reasonable officer

Chase v. Nodine's Smokehouse, Inc.

360 F. Supp. 3d 98 · District Court, D. Connecticut · Jan 22, 2019

Federal Qualified Immunity The Town Defendants argue that "the individual Canton defendants are entitled to qualified immunity as to each claim set forth by the plaintiff in Counts Fourteen through Twenty-two." … is entitled to qualified immunity where (1) his conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known, or (2) it was objectively reasonable for him

Freeman v. Berge

283 F. Supp. 2d 1009 · District Court, W.D. Wisconsin · Jun 3, 2003

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY Defendants argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity on plaintiffs claims that he was denied social interaction and sensory stimulation. … Qualified immunity provides officers with protection from lawsuits for money damages when there is no clearly established law that the official’s act violated the Constitution. Harlow v.

Keker v. Procunier

398 F. Supp. 756 · District Court, E.D. California · Aug 8, 1975

Rhodes, supra, clarified the rule that public officials of the executive branch have a “qualified immunity” from suit under § 1983. … Clearly, the “qualified immunity” of executive officers may be an extremely broad one. Nevertheless, Scheuer v.

Williams v. Van Buren Township

925 F. Supp. 1231 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · May 10, 1996

Qualified Immunity of Officers There are two parts to a qualified immunity analysis: (1) determining whether plaintiff has demonstrated the violation of a constitutionally protected right, and (2) if so, determining whether … Thus, they would not be entitled to qualified immunity. Accordingly, this court cannot grant defendants’ summary judgment motion at this time with respect to qualified immunity. 2.