Case law

Larson v. Cantrell

974 F. Supp. 1211 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Aug 11, 1997

Judge Cantrell’s second major argument is that she is entitled to qualified immunity, Under that doctrine, government officials enjoy immunity from damages liability unless their conduct “violate [s] clearly established statutory … Next, Judge Cantrell argues for qualified immunity position-by-position.

Mountain Pure, LLC v. Roberts

93 F. Supp. 3d 993 · District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Mar 19, 2015

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 a reasonable person … Whitledge, 165 F.3d 1197 , 1202-03 (8th Cir. 1999) (“[T]his generalized right to be free from an unreasonable use of excessive force during a police seizure does not clearly establish a right for purposes of a qualified-immunity

Smith v. Luther

973 F. Supp. 601 · District Court, N.D. Mississippi · Jul 21, 1997

Further, defendants argue that there was no clearly established right which they could have violated, i.e. plaintiffs had no constitutional right to hide a vehicle from tax seizure or to thwart an attempt by the tax commission … Plaintiffs argue that they had a clearly established right to be free from malicious prosecution and false arrest, and that whether or not there was probable cause for the arrest is an issue for the trier of fact to determine

Dollar Loan Ctr. of S.D., LLC v. Afdahl

325 F. Supp. 3d 968 · United States District Court · May 29, 2018

was not "clearly established." … Afdahl cannot claim the protection of qualified immunity because relevant precedent clearly establishes the right to a predeprivation hearing before the revocation of a business license.

Munson v. Gaetz

957 F. Supp. 2d 951 · District Court, S.D. Illinois · Jul 17, 2013

However, the Court GRANTS in part Defendants’ motion for summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity. Moving Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. … Qualiñed Immunity “Generally, qualified immunity protects government agents from liability when their actions do not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known

Popham v. City of Talladega

742 F. Supp. 1504 · District Court, N.D. Alabama · Jun 1, 1989

Once a defendant advances a defense of qualified immunity, he is entitled to summary judgment unless “the legal norms allegedly violated by the defendant were clearly established at the time of the challenged actions_” Mitchell … When a jail official in a jail suicide case raises the defense of qualified immunity as to claims under § 1983, the -plaintiff must persuade the court that the law was clearly established that the defendant’s conduct in the

Willey v. Kirkpatrick

664 F. Supp. 2d 218 · District Court, W.D. New York · Oct 13, 2009

Qualified Immunity Defendants maintain that the Complaint should be dismissed on the ground of qualified immunity, since their actions were “objectively reasonable.” … Here, Defendants rely on the “objectively reasonable” prong of the qualified immunity defense, but they do not cite any language in the Complaint that would establish that their actions were objectively reasonable.

Alvarado v. City of New York

482 F. Supp. 2d 332 · District Court, S.D. New York · Mar 26, 2007

Finally, Defendants’ qualified immunity does not protect them from this claim. … Thus, the Court concludes that this claim cannot be dismissed on the grounds of qualified immunity. III.

LaLonde v. Bates

166 F. Supp. 2d 713 · District Court, N.D. New York · Aug 20, 2001

EL Qualified Immunity Defendants assert that they are immune to liability under plaintiffs claims of unlawful search and seizure and excessive force due to the doctrine of qualified immunity. … “The doctrine of qualified immunity shields police officers acting in their official capacity from suits for damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 , unless their actions violate clearly-established rights of which an objectively

Lewis v. City of Boston

829 F. Supp. 471 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Aug 3, 1993

not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. … In analyzing the defense of qualified immunity in this case, the court’s first task is to ascertain whether plaintiff has alleged, with sufficient particularity, that Officers Butler and Holland violated his clearly established

Singer v. State of Maine

865 F. Supp. 19 · District Court, D. Maine · Oct 4, 1994

Defendants respond that *22 these individuals are protected from suit pursuant to the doctrine of qualified immunity. 1 “When a defendant moves for summary judgment based on the doctrine of qualified immunity, the court must … These same defendants, however, do not possess qualified immunity with respect to Plaintiff Fifth Amendment § 1983 claim.

Pompeo v. Board of Regents of the University of New Mexico

58 F. Supp. 3d 1187 · District Court, D. New Mexico · Sep 29, 2014

Legal Standards Applicable to a Disposi-tive Motion Based on Qualified Immunity Resolution of a dispositive motion based on qualified immunity involves a two *1189 pronged inquiry. … Plaintiffs First Amendment Rights Were Clearly Established The remaining question is whether Plaintiffs First Amendment rights were clearly established.

Goldberg v. Junion

208 F. Supp. 3d 977 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Sep 23, 2016

Defendants contend summary judgment in their favor is required because they are entitled to qualified immunity. A. Qualified Immunity Standard Qualified immunity is a “powerful shield,” Gregorich v. … This right was clearly established by the Seventh Circuit in Berkowitz in 1991, and then reaffirmed in Sparing in 2001, long before this incident took place in 2013.

Whitton v. Williams

90 F. Supp. 2d 420 · District Court, S.D. New York · Mar 31, 2000

of law on qualified immunity grounds. … The Second Circuit has stated that the “doctrine of qualified immunity shields public officials performing discretionary functions from civil liability insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory

Noffsinger v. Landers

196 F. Supp. 3d 746 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Jul 22, 2016

if their actions did not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. … In short, to decide whether a government official is entitled to qualified immunity a court must determine whether plaintiff has shown the official violated a constitutional right that was “clearly established” when he or

Dalrymple v. Reno

164 F. Supp. 2d 1364 · District Court, S.D. Florida · Oct 1, 2001

Defendants assert entitlement to qualified immunity. … Nor is the Court aware of any such holding; at the very least, the absence of case law clearly establishing the illegality of such conduct would entitle Defendant to qualified immunity.

Nichols v. Brown

945 F. Supp. 2d 1079 · District Court, C.D. California · Mar 3, 2013

“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 a reasonable person … Kealoha, 869 F.Supp.2d 1203, 1224 (D.Hawai’i 2012) (police chief entitled to qualified immunity where the alleged right to a firearm ownership permit following a harassment conviction was not clearly established); Dorr v.

Lamarche v. Costain

225 F. Supp. 2d 83 · District Court, D. Maine · Oct 7, 2002

right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation; and (3) whether an objectively reasonable official, similarly situated, would have understood the challenged conduct to violate that clearly established … Clearly Established Constitutional Right Qualified immunity analysis requires the Court to next examine whether Plaintiffs constitutional right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation.

Blanco v. City of Clearwater, Fla.

9 F. Supp. 2d 1316 · District Court, M.D. Florida · Jun 17, 1998

“Qualified immunity protects government officials performing discretionary functions from civil trials (and the other burdens of litigation, including discovery) and from liability if their conduct violates ‘no clearly established … “Once the qualified immunity defénse is raised, plaintiffs bear the burden of showing that the federal ‘rights’ allegedly violated were ‘clearly established.’ ” Lassiter, 28 F.3d at 1150 n. 3 (citing Barts v.

Williams v. City of Boston

771 F. Supp. 2d 190 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Mar 24, 2011

“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 a reasonable person … the right at issue was clearly established at the time of defendant’s alleged misconduct.”