Case law

Jackson v. Town of Waldoboro

751 F. Supp. 2d 263 · District Court, D. Maine · Nov 22, 2010

In Pearson , the Supreme Court established that the qualified immunity is a two part test. … Under this second stage of the qualified immunity inquiry, despite a clearly established and well-known right to be free from excessive deadly force, a reasonable officer standing in Curtis’ shoes — struggling in the woods

Phillips v. City of Fairfield

406 F. Supp. 2d 1101 · District Court, E.D. California · Dec 21, 2005

Qualified Immunity Defendants argue that, even if the officers made a mistake regarding probable cause or the amount of force required, they are immune from suit based upon the doctrine of qualified immunity. … A law officer can establish qualified immunity by demonstrating (1) that the law governing the officer’s conduct was not clearly established at the time of the challenged actions, or (2) that under the clearly established

Schaefer v. Las Cruces Public School District

716 F. Supp. 2d 1052 · District Court, D. New Mexico · Apr 30, 2010

Qualified immunity shields government officials from liability where “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Pearson v. … Once the plaintiff has established the inference that the defendant’s conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right, a qualified-immunity defense generally fails. See Cannon v.

Myers v. Baca

325 F. Supp. 2d 1095 · District Court, C.D. California · Jul 15, 2004

Qualified immunity is appropriate if the facts, taken in the light most favorable to the party asserting injury, do not show that the officer’s conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right. … Clearly Established Nature of the Right 1.

Olson v. Stewart

240 F. Supp. 3d 1251 · District Court, N.D. Florida · Mar 8, 2017

Rugg, 221 F.3d 1283, 1294 (11th Cir. 2000) (holding that a district court’s denial of qualified immunity is immediately appealable only if it “pres-entís] a legal question concerning a clearly established federal right that … Olson as the nonmoving party, he can assert that there was no clearly established law showing that this arrest was improper.

Taylor v. City of Nederland, Tex.

685 F. Supp. 616 · District Court, E.D. Texas · May 16, 1988

The second reason the action was dismissed against defendant Myers was on *618 the basis of qualified immunity. … Defendant Borne is immune from suit under the doctrine of absolute judicial immunity. Defendant Myers is not liable because of qualified immunity as well as a break in the chain of causation.

Wiggins v. Rhode Island

326 F. Supp. 2d 297 · District Court, D. Rhode Island · Jul 22, 2004

This leaves the latter five contentions; Defendants (namely, the Officers) assert, as to each of these, the defense of qualified immunity. 18 A court evaluating a claim of qualified immunity must first determine whether a … If so, the court must next “determine whether that right was clearly established at the time of the [official’s] alleged violation.” Wilson v.

Abdella v. O'TOOLE

343 F. Supp. 2d 129 · District Court, D. Connecticut · Oct 29, 2004

The court will now consider the issue of qualified immunity. IV. QUALIFIED IMMUNITY All three defendants in this case argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity based on their actions. … Once the court has determined whether a right could be violated on the facts, the second step is to determine if the right alleged is clearly established. Id.

Auvaa v. City of Taylorsville

506 F. Supp. 2d 903 · District Court, D. Utah · Mar 27, 2007

Qualified Immunity “The doctrine of qualified immunity shields public officials ... from damage actions unless their conduct was unreasonable in light of clearly established law.” Elder v. … clearly established at the time of the conduct at issue.

Velius v. Township of Hamilton

754 F. Supp. 2d 689 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Dec 7, 2010

immunity. … Evanson, 615 F.3d 197, 224 (3d Cir.2010) (qualified immunity analysis asks “ ‘whether the right was clearly established ... in light of the specific context of the case.... ’ A right is clearly established if ‘it would be

Hootstein v. Collins

928 F. Supp. 2d 326 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Mar 8, 2013

was clearly established at the time of defendants’ actions. … to qualified immunity. .

Goehring v. United States

870 F. Supp. 106 · District Court, D. Maryland · Dec 7, 1994

,” i.e. he is shielded from liability to the extent that his conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … That contention proves too much: all things are possible and if mere possibility is all that is required to establish a qualified immunity defense, law enforcement officials would have virtually unlimited license to use deadly

Rocket Learning, Inc. v. Rivera-Sanchez

851 F. Supp. 2d 384 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Mar 30, 2012

Defendant’s Qualified Immunity Request The Secretary challenges the magistrate judge’s recommendation that qualified immunity be denied. … Defendant is entitled to qualified immunity unless: “(1) the facts alleged or shown by the plaintiff make out a violation of a constitutional right and (2) such right was clearly established at the time of the defendant's

Dier v. CITY OF PRESTONSBURG, KY.

480 F. Supp. 2d 929 · District Court, E.D. Kentucky · Mar 30, 2007

In civil suits seeking money damages, government officials acting in their official capacities are entitled to qualified immunity for those discretionary acts that do “not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … Accordingly, the Section 1983 claims against the individuals, Officers Clark and Dale, are barred by the doctrines of qualified immunity and qualified official immunity making summary judgment proper.

Lonsdale v. Egger

525 F. Supp. 610 · District Court, N.D. Texas · Oct 26, 1981

Those remaining, Defendants Egger, Voskuil, and Rosenstein, would be cloaked with qualified immunity when acting within the sphere of their official responsibility. … established constitutional rights.

Dean v. Fluty

231 F. Supp. 3d 513 · District Court, C.D. California · Feb 2, 2017

Qualified immunity protects police officer defendants from liability for civil damages when performing discretionary functions, unless such conduct violated a clearly established constitutional or statutory right of which … Officer Fluty would be entitled to qualified immunity. The Plaintiff argues that Officer Fluty’s alleged misconduct precludes a finding of qualified immunity.

Rodriguez v. City of Cleveland

619 F. Supp. 2d 461 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Jun 1, 2009

An a matter of law, qualified immunity shields a state actor from civil damages in appropriate cases: Reliance on the objective reasonableness of an official’s conduct, as measured by reference to clearly established law, … action places it beyond the scope of a police officer’s qualified immunity if the right retaliated against was clearly established,” DeLoach v.

Qvyjt v. Lin

953 F. Supp. 244 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Feb 11, 1997

They further contend that, with respect to Count III, they áre entitled to qualified immunity, as it was not clearly established that professors at a public university violate a graduate student’s First Amendment rights when … ■Having concluded that plaintiff has rebutted the first prong of the qualified immunity defense, the court turns to the second prong — whether the constitutional standards were clearly .established at the time defendants

Pandolfi De Rinaldis v. Llavona

62 F. Supp. 2d 426 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Aug 16, 1999

Morales may avail herself of the doctrine of qualified immunity. … that the conduct alleged is a violation of ‘clearly established’ law.”

Jennings v. UNIVERSITY OF N. CAR 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.