Case law

Price v. City of Sutherlin

945 F. Supp. 2d 1147 · District Court, D. Oregon · May 9, 2013

Excessive Force Claim Qualified immunity shields government officials from civil liability “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would … Whether the Right Was Clearly Established The second prong of the qualified immunity analysis concerns whether the deputies had “fair warning” that the force used on a plaintiff was excessive. See Hope v.

Small v. Glynn County

77 F. Supp. 3d 1271 · District Court, S.D. Georgia · Sep 30, 2014

As the high Court stressed, “Our qualified-immunity cases illustrate the importance of drawing inferences in favor of the nonmovant, even when, [as in Tolan], a court decides only the clearly-established prong of the standard … Specifically, the Plaintiffs have failed to clear the second qualified immunity hurdle, for the law was not clearly established to place Sasser and Simpson on notice that their conduct was clearly unlawful under the particular

Kaminski v. CITY OF WHITEWATER, WI

877 F. Supp. 1289 · District Court, E.D. Wisconsin · Mar 6, 1995

Doctrine of Qualified Immunity In this case, defendants have pleaded qualified immunity as an affirmative defense. … Under the qualified immunity doctrine, “government officials performing discretionary functions [ ] generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory

Smith v. City of Detroit

238 F. Supp. 2d 896 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Jan 7, 2003

When a defendant moves for summary judgment based on qualified immunity, the plaintiff must: 1) identify a clearly established right alleged to have been violated; and 2) establish that a reasonable officer in the defendant … This court cannot, on this state of the record, hold that any of the individuals are entitled to qualified immunity for their actions, that evening. IV. Municipalities are not entitled to qualified immunity Ruby v.

Z Street, Inc. v. Koskinen

44 F. Supp. 3d 48 · District Court, District of Columbia · May 27, 2014

Rather, the circuit has 16 clearly established that whether or not the AIA and DJA prohibit a suit against the IRS depends on whether the action is fundamentally a “tax collection … Under the firmly-established doctrine of sovereign immunity, the United States is immune to suit unless Congress has expressly waived the immunity defense. See, e.g., United States v.

Daugherty v. Sheer

248 F. Supp. 3d 272 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 31, 2017

Qualified Immunity (All Defendants) Defendants also request that this court find that all Defendants are immune from suit because they possess qualified immunity. … Government officials may be protected by qualified immunity only if “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v.

Abordo v. State of Hawaii

902 F. Supp. 1220 · District Court, D. Hawaii · Aug 25, 1995

Whether an official is immune “turns on the *1229 objective reasonableness of their conduct in light of clearly established law, not on their subjective good faith.” Bateson v. … In order to avoid a claim of qualified immunity, the plaintiff must prove that the law clearly established that the official’s actions were unlawful at the time of the alleged misconduct. Romero v.

Flanigan v. Town of Colchester

171 F. Supp. 2d 361 · District Court, D. Vermont · Oct 31, 2001

Qualified Immunity The privilege of qualified immunity protects law enforcement officers from facing suit, not merely liability. Saucier v. … The Supreme Court did not provide a clearly established rule in Graham. Id. at 2158.

Fedor v. Kudrak

421 F. Supp. 2d 473 · District Court, D. Connecticut · Mar 14, 2006

Qualified Immunity The defendants next claim that, even if Fedor’s right to equal protection was violated, they are entitled to qualified immunity. … Qualified immunity is warranted if either (1) the official’s actions did not violate clearly established law, or (2) even if the actions violated a clearly established law, the official was objectively reasonable in believing

Quiles v. Kilson

337 F. Supp. 2d 224 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Feb 23, 2004

He also found a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the police were protected by qualified immunity, except with respect to Officer Kilson, who was found not to have qualified immunity. … The court must determine: 1) whether the plaintiffs’ allegations, if true, establish a constitutional violation, 2) whether the right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation and 3) “whether a reasonable

Walker v. Corizon Health, Inc.

370 F. Supp. 3d 1271 · District Court, D. Kansas · Feb 28, 2019

The court also concludes that plaintiffs have satisfied their burden-at the pleading stage-to demonstrate that the constitutional right at issue was "clearly established" under the second prong of the qualified immunity test … Mohiuddin violated clearly established law by depriving Mr. Davis of a constitutional right. D. Eleventh Amendment Immunity Dr.

Spencer v. Garden

322 F. Supp. 3d 1205 · District Court, D. Utah · Jun 28, 2018

Qualified immunity shields government officials who perform discretionary functions from § 1983 damages suits so long as "their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … Clearly Established Law Because the Court has determined that there was no constitutional violation, it need not determine whether any rights were 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).

Baker v. City of Detroit

483 F. Supp. 919 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Sep 25, 1979

They further claim that a review of the pleadings establishes that defendants never asserted the affirmative defense of qualified immunity. … These defenses clearly set forth legal *922 grounds for a claim of governmental immunity.

Orafan v. Goord

411 F. Supp. 2d 153 · District Court, N.D. New York · Jan 17, 2006

Qualified Immunity Defendants contend they are entitled to qualified immunity on Plaintiffs RLUIPA claim. … is a clearly established right.

Sinaloa Lake Owners Ass'n v. Stephenson

805 F. Supp. 824 · District Court, C.D. California · Sep 24, 1992

General Qualified Immunity Standard When performing discretionary functions, government officials are entitled to qualified immunity unless, in taking the challenged action, they violate “clearly established statutory or … have articulated the violation of a clearly established right, the Court finds the qualified immunity defense shields the defendant because a reasonable dam safety engineering official, similarly situated, could have believed

Ramsey v. Lake Havasu City, City of

District Court, D. Arizona · Sep 27, 2023

Legal Standard 23 Government officials enjoy qualified immunity from civil damages unless their 24 conduct violates “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable 25 person … If there is no such case, then the right was not clearly established. See id. at 18 1117–18.

Peters v. Moses

613 F. Supp. 1328 · District Court, W.D. Virginia · May 17, 1985

“Whether an official may prevail in his qualified immunity defense depends upon the ‘objective reasonableness of [his] conduct as measured by reference to clearly established law.’ ... … Davis, 104 S.Ct. at 3018 (emphasis added). 15 Applying this standard to the case at hand, I find that the Defendant Moses has successfully established a qualified immunity defense.

Genovese v. County of Suffolk

128 F. Supp. 3d 661 · District Court, E.D. New York · Sep 8, 2015

Qualified Immunity Defendants argue that Carlock is entitled to qualified immunity, because his belief that plaintiff had trespassed on the base was reasonable. … Even if a state actor deprives an individual of his constitutional rights, the doctrine of qualified immunity shields that government official from civil liability if his “conduct does not violate clearly established statutory

McLennon v. City of New York

171 F. Supp. 3d 69 · District Court, E.D. New York · Mar 18, 2016

“Qualified immunity protects public officials from liability for civil damages when one of two conditions is satisfied: (a) the defendant’s action did not violate clearly established law, or (b) it was objectively reasonable … Given that “qualified immunity is not only a defense to liability, but also provides immunity from suit,” a court should resolve a “defendant’s entitlement to qualified immunity ...