Case law

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

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.

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 ...

Flenner v. Sheahan

920 F. Supp. 905 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Mar 25, 1996

to qualified immunity.” … Accordingly, Sheahan is entitled to qualified immunity because Plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate that they possessed a clearly established right to avoid patronage dismissal. See Harlow 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.

Lifton v. Board of Educ. of City of Chicago

290 F. Supp. 2d 940 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Nov 10, 2003

Qualified immunity protects government officials from civil liability when performing discretionary functions so long as the officials’ conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … To overcome assertion of a qualified immunity defense, a plaintiff must allege the deprivation of an actual constitutional right that was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation. Id.

Kaspar v. City of Hobbs

90 F. Supp. 2d 1313 · District Court, D. New Mexico · Mar 28, 2000

Losoya’s apparent authority and would be entitled to qualified immunity. C. Qualified Immunity I note that if Mr. … Defendants claim that qualified immunity protects the officers, and cite three cases as support for their contention that the officers were acting in accordance with clearly established law.

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

Hardesty v. Hamburg Township

352 F. Supp. 2d 823 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Jan 13, 2005

conduct does not violate clearly *831 established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … right; and (2) if so, “whether the law clearly established that the officer’s conduct was unlawful in the circumstances of the case.”

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

SP Frederica, LLC v. Glynn County

173 F. Supp. 3d 1362 · District Court, S.D. Georgia · Mar 25, 2016

For the plaintiff to overcome qualified immunity, it must show that “(1) the defendant violated a constitutional right, and (2) this right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation.” Holloman ex rel. … Because Plaintiffs’ pleadings are insufficient to demonstrate the violation of a clearly established constitutional right, Plaintiffs cannot overcome the.application of qualified immunity at this stage.

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).

Malignaggi v. County of Gloucester

855 F. Supp. 74 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Jun 24, 1994

The court must then determine whether the officer’s conduct was objectively reasonable given the legal rules clearly established at the time. Anderson, 483 U.S. at 639 , 107 S.Ct. at 3038 . … Only when the contours of a right are sufficiently clear so that a reasonable officer would understand that his conduct violates that right will a right be considered clearly established.

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

Pinnix v. Pollock

338 F. Supp. 2d 885 · District Court, W.D. Tennessee · Apr 5, 2004

The defendants first argue that Pollock is entitled to qualified immunity. … If the right is clearly established, the Court must then determine whether the facts supported by the evidence demonstrate that what the defendant did was objectively unreasonable in light of that clearly established right

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.

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.