Case law

Keeler v. Pea

782 F. Supp. 42 · District Court, D. South Carolina · Jan 9, 1992

Keeler’s third area of disagreement is with the magistrate judge’s conclusion that Pea is entitled to qualified immunity. On this point, however, Keeler is objecting to a legal conclusion. … Pea’s immunity, however, is based on the Eleventh Amendment and principles of common law, which provide a valid qualified immunity. See Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 , 102 S.Ct. 2727 , 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982).

Lewis v. City of Albany Police Department

547 F. Supp. 2d 191 · District Court, N.D. New York · Apr 24, 2008

Qualified Immunity insulates a governmental official performing discretionary functions from liability so long as his “ ‘conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … Legal questions pertaining to qualified immunity, such as whether violation of a federally protected right has been asserted, whether the asserted right was clearly established, and whether the facts “demonstrate the objective

Richards v. Southeast Alabama Youth Services Diversion Center

105 F. Supp. 2d 1268 · District Court, M.D. Alabama · Jul 21, 2000

An official is entitled to qualified immunity if he is performing discretionary functions and his actions do “ ‘not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known … When qualified immunity is asserted as a defense, a court must first determine whether there is a violation of a constitutional right, then determine whether that right was clearly established. See Wilson v.

Anderson v. City of Tampa

555 F. Supp. 2d 1268 · District Court, M.D. Florida · May 1, 2008

Discussion Officer Bucher contends that he is entitled to qualified immunity. … “Qualified immunity protects government officials performing discretionary functions from individual liability as long as their conduct ‘does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable

Kirk v. City of Kokomo

772 F. Supp. 2d 983 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Feb 17, 2011

Ultimately, the court resolved the search issue on qualified immunity, holding that it was not clearly established that searching the officer’s desk even without reasonable suspicion would violate the Fourth Amendment. … Accordingly, Plaintiffs have failed to carry their burden to show that their right to be free of such office searches was clearly established at the time of the searches, and Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity.

Morron v. City of Middletown

464 F. Supp. 2d 111 · District Court, D. Connecticut · Dec 4, 2006

a defense of qualified immunity. … Generally, qualified immunity insulates government officials from personal liability when they perform discretionary duties pursuant to their official functions “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established

Chi Chao Yuan v. Rivera

48 F. Supp. 2d 335 · District Court, S.D. New York · Mar 25, 1999

Qualified Immunity Government employees sued in their individual capacities enjoy qualified immunity when they perform discretionary functions if either (1) their conduct “did not violate clearly established rights of which … qualified immunity).

Armstrong v. Village of Bellwood

District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jan 15, 2021

“The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials from liability when their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. … The qualified immunity inquiry involves two questions: (1) whether a plaintiff’s constitutional rights have been violated; and (2) whether the right at issue was “clearly established” at the time of the alleged misconduct

Hickey-McAllister v. British Airways

978 F. Supp. 133 · District Court, E.D. New York · Sep 26, 1997

Anton further argues that he is entitled to qualified immunity with respect to the Bivens claim because plaintiff has not alleged the violation of a clearly established constitutional right. … Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, Anton is “shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as [his] conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would

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 .

Demuren v. Old Dominion University

33 F. Supp. 2d 469 · District Court, E.D. Virginia · Jan 12, 1999

The Court does recognize “qualified immunity” from suits for damages for the actions of government officials that do not “violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have … “Where the law is clearly established, and where no reasonable [official]- could believe he' was acting in accordance with it, qualified immunity will not attach.” Id.

Hamilton v. Peters

919 F. Supp. 1168 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Mar 19, 1996

The doctrine of qualified immunity protects governmental officials engaged in discretionary functions from suit “as long as their conduct does not violate a ‘clearly established’ constitutional right ‘of which a reasonable … were clearly established at the time of the alleged violation.

Robinson v. Gerritson

210 F. Supp. 2d 1004 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jul 1, 2002

Qualified immunity shields defendant police officers from liability where their conduct (1) did not violate any clearly established rights and (2) was objectively reasonable (Biddle v. … But as the earlier quotation from Humphrey teaches, Gerritson need not establish probable cause as a matter of law to take shelter within the mantle of qualified immunity.

Graham v. Carter

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Nov 12, 2021

The defendants also argue they are entitled to qualified immunity because their actions were not clearly unconstitutional under clearly established law. ECF 61 at 19-21. However, this argument fails as to Sgt. … Zimmerman cannot avoid trial on qualified immunity grounds.

Dorsey v. Ruth

222 F. Supp. 2d 753 · District Court, D. Maryland · Sep 23, 2002

Further, the time frame established by Gruber’s statement does not clearly support Dorsey’s position. … Qualified Immunity Although Officer Ruth did not raise the issue, he enjoys qualified immunity against Dorsey’s suit.

Rodriguez v. City of N.Y.

291 F. Supp. 3d 396 · District Court, S.D. Illinois · Mar 5, 2018

A valid qualified immunity defense can foreclose liability under § 1983. … "Qualified immunity is an affirmative defense that shields government officials from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a

Meyer v. Reno

911 F. Supp. 11 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 4, 1996

Sovereign immunity bars any claims against the defendants in their official capacities. Furthermore, the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity- A. … The defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. Prison officials enjoy qualified immunity from constitutional and statutory claims. Cleavinger v.

Gmyr-Maez v. Schneider

169 F. Supp. 3d 1172 · District Court, D. New Mexico · Feb 11, 2016

Plaintiff has not demonstrated that the relevant law was clearly established. … The second part of the qualified immunity inquiry for the Court to consider is whether the law on this issue was clearly established.

Zaire v. Dalsheim

698 F. Supp. 57 · District Court, S.D. New York · Oct 25, 1988

under the Eleventh Amendment; the doctrine of qualified immunity; and failure to sufficiently allege causation. … 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 person

Barrett v. Wallace

107 F. Supp. 2d 949 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Jul 5, 2000

Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 526 , 105 S.Ct. 2806 , 86 L.Ed.2d 411 (1985) (“Unless a plaintiffs allegations state a claim of violation of ‘clearly established’ law, a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal … The rationale for the “qualified immunity” doctrine as stated in Harlow v.