Case law

L.Q.A. ex rel. Arrington v. Eberhart

920 F. Supp. 1208 · District Court, M.D. Alabama · Feb 21, 1996

Qualified immunity protects government officials performing discretionary functions from civil liability if their conduct violates no clearly established statutory or constitutional rights. Courson v. … The court emphasizes that the plaintiff cannot rely on “general conclusory allegations” or “broad legal truisms” to show that the law is clearly established for purposes of defeating a claim for qualified immunity.

Saavedra v. City of Albuquerque

859 F. Supp. 526 · District Court, D. New Mexico · Jul 27, 1994

Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 , 102 S.Ct. 2727, 2738 , 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982) (qualified immunity does not apply to conduct violative of clearly established constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known … The courts in DeVargas and Sherman were extending qualified, not absolute, immunity.

Greer v. City of Hayward

229 F. Supp. 3d 1091 · District Court, N.D. California · Jan 17, 2017

“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 … A jury may agree with Tougas’s view of the evidence, but given the disputed facts and the clearly established law, I cannot find that Tougas is entitled to qualified immunity as a matter of law. C.

Stalhut v. City of Lincoln

145 F. Supp. 2d 1115 · District Court, D. Nebraska · May 30, 2001

DISCUSSION “Qualified immunity shields government officials from suit unless their conduct violated a clearly established constitutional or statutory right of which a reasonable person would have known.” Yowell v. … Stated another way, qualified immunity shields a defendant from suit if he or she could have reasonably believed his or her conduct to be lawful “in light of clearly established law and the information [that the defendant

Harrington v. Grayson

764 F. Supp. 464 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Apr 30, 1991

Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 , 102 S.Ct. 2727 , 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982), the Court established and defined the parameters of the qualified immunity defense for state officials who were sued in their individual capacities. … Suits Against State Officials in their Individual Capacity are not Barred by Sovereign Immunity: Prior to Will , it was clearly established that suits against state officials in their individual capacity do not seek money

Clark v. Summit County Sheriff

508 F. Supp. 2d 929 · District Court, D. Utah · Jan 10, 2007

Harrington, 268 F.3d 1179, 1186 (10th Cir.2001) (explaining that a plaintiffs failure to establish the first prong is sufficient grounds for granting qualified immunity). … still have to grant the defendant qualified immunity “if prior decisions did not clearly establish that the use of that force in those circumstances was constitutionally excessive.”

Hanks v. County of Delaware

518 F. Supp. 2d 642 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 3, 2007

The qualified immunity defense is twofold. … To evaluate this proposition, I move to the second prong of qualified immunity and inquire whether Officer Sabillon’s conduct would have been clearly unlawful to a reasonable officer in his situation.

Marshall v. Gates

812 F. Supp. 1050 · District Court, C.D. California · Jan 15, 1993

B) Qualified Immunity for Public Officials When performing discretionary functions, governmental officials are entitled to qualified immunity unless, in taking the challenged action, they violate “clearly established statutory … Finally, when qualified immunity is at issue, plaintiff bears the burden of showing that a “fact-specific constitutional right was clearly established.” Davis v.

Carlsberg v. Gatzek

442 F. Supp. 813 · District Court, C.D. California · Dec 16, 1977

For these reasons, the doctrine of absolute immunity established in Imbler must be applied in this case. … than qualified.

MacFarlane v. Town of East Bridgewater

110 F. Supp. 3d 310 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jun 23, 2015

Qualified Immunity — In General “Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, police officers are protected ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … to qualified immunity.

Middlebrook v. City of Bartlett

341 F. Supp. 2d 950 · District Court, W.D. Tennessee · Mar 7, 2003

“Government officials performing discretionary functions are afforded qualified immunity, shielding them from civil damages, as long as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights … Therefore, in order to defeat Defendants’ claims of qualified immunity, Plaintiffs must show: (1) that a clearly established right has been violated; and (2) the official would have known that their conduct violates that

Cooper v. District of Columbia

District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 9, 2021

Clearly Established Right The second question hinges on whether the takedown and strikes “violate[d] clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … (finding that kicking suspect after he was on ground and subdued violated clearly established law).

Garrett v. Unified Government of Athens-Clarke County

246 F. Supp. 2d 1262 · District Court, M.D. Georgia · Feb 28, 2003

Qualified Immunity Principles Qualified immunity offers complete protection for governmental officials sued in their individual capacities if their conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … constitutional right was “clearly established” at the time of the violation.

Paylor v. District of Columbia

District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 11, 2024

These Defendants now seek summary judgment, asserting that qualified immunity shields them both because they acted reasonably when arresting Plaintiff and because they did not offend any clearly established prohibitions … Circuit held that the strikes were not so clearly excessive that qualified immunity was inappropriate. Id. at 1303–04.

Arroyo Lopez v. Nuttall

25 F. Supp. 2d 407 · District Court, S.D. New York · Nov 4, 1998

Qualiñed Immunity Nor is Nuttall shielded from liability by the doctrine of qualified immunity. … A government official is entitled to qualified immunity when the official’s conduct does not *410 violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. Harlow v.

Benson v. United States

969 F. Supp. 1129 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jul 7, 1997

immunity argument, since it finds that Morton also is entitled to qualified immunity. … time in question clearly established that Morton could deny Benson permission to travel outside of the Northern District of Illinois as a valid parole condition.

McCabe v. MacAulay

551 F. Supp. 2d 771 · District Court, N.D. Iowa · Oct 1, 2007

With respect to the second step in the qualified immunity analysis, a right is “clearly established” if “a ‘reasonable officer would understand that what he is doing violates that right.’ ” Andrews v. City of W. … Were Plaintiffs’ First Amendment Rights Clearly Established?

Range v. Douglas

878 F. Supp. 2d 869 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Jul 13, 2012

In finding that the individual defendants were -not entitled to qualified immunity, *880 the Chesher court found that it was clearly-established that a substantive due process violation occurs where “authorities permití] … Because Plaintiffs have failed to establish a constitutional violation, this Court does not need to consider whether Plaintiffs’ constitutional right was clearly established for purposes of qualified immunity.

Daniels v. Tyler

56 F. Supp. 3d 967 · District Court, N.D. Iowa · Oct 23, 2014

to qualified immunity unless their alleged conduct violated clearly established federal constitutional or statutory rights of which a reasonable person in their positions would have known.” … “If the law did not put the officer on notice that his conduct would be clearly unlawful, summary judgment based on qualified immunity is appropriate.” Saucier v.

Eberhart v. Gettys

215 F. Supp. 2d 666 · District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Jul 11, 2002

— Stillwell, Smith, and Gettys — meet the requirements for qualified immunity. … However, this finding alone is not enough to abrogate Gettys’s qualified immunity.