Case law

Flournoy v. Colbenson

37 F. Supp. 3d 971 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Apr 15, 2014

Second, it must be determined whether the right was clearly established at the time of the conduct alleged. … Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 640 , 107 S.Ct. 3034 , 97 L.Ed.2d 523 (1987) (even dicta may clearly establish a right); see also Hanes, 578 F.3d at 496 .

McCachren v. Blacklick Valley School District

217 F. Supp. 2d 594 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 16, 2002

They first claim that they enjoy qualified immunity from a suit of this kind. … This alleged involvement in conduct that violates established law is sufficient at the motion to dismiss stage to defeat the individual defendants’ assertion of qualified immunity.

Kaufmann v. United States

840 F. Supp. 641 · District Court, E.D. Wisconsin · Dec 22, 1993

Qualified immunity protects government officials performing discretionary functions from “liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … that the right to the free exercise of one’s religion has long been a clearly established constitutional right.

Hayden v. Alabama Dep't of Public Safety

506 F. Supp. 2d 944 · District Court, M.D. Alabama · Jun 11, 2007

Moreover, in the context of a Rule 12(b)(6) assertion of qualified immunity, “[u]nless the plaintiffs allegations state a claim of violation of clearly established law, a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled … The *951 doctrine of qualified immunity generally shields government officials performing discretionary functions from civil liability when their conduct does not violate clearly-established constitutional rights which a

Burk v. Unified School Dist. No. 329, Wabaunsee Cty.

646 F. Supp. 1557 · District Court, D. Kansas · Nov 10, 1986

Qualified Immunity. The individual defendants move for a directed verdict on all claims against them on the ground that they are entitled to qualified immunity. … The doctrine of qualified immunity provides that “government officials performing discretionary functions ... are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory

Woods v. York County

534 F. Supp. 2d 153 · District Court, D. Maine · Feb 19, 2008

Qualified Immunity Defendants next argue that Plaintiffs § 1983 claims against Cote and Vitiello are barred by qualified immunity. … his conduct jeopardized [the plaintiffs clearly established] rights.”

Rosado v. Alameida

497 F. Supp. 2d 1179 · District Court, S.D. California · Jun 14, 2007

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 … Pickett’s decision is not protected by qualified immunity.

Hodge Ex Rel. Hodge v. Lynd

88 F. Supp. 2d 1234 · District Court, D. New Mexico · Mar 14, 2000

The second hurdle presented by a qualified-immunity claim is the necessity of establishing the right was “clearly established” at the time of the conduct at issue. See id. … were clearly established and qualified immunity would be denied, even though case involved unusual fact situation).

Burns v. County of Cambria, Pa.

764 F. Supp. 1031 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 4, 1991

A government official will be denied qualified immunity for having violated a clearly established right when “in light of preexisting law the unlawfulness [is] apparent.” Anderson, 107 S.Ct. at 3039 . … The grant of qualified immunity to the defendants properly depends upon whether the plaintiffs’ right to be free from politically based firings was clearly established. In People of Three Mile Island v. Nuclear Reg.

Clardy v. Pounds

District Court, M.D. Tennessee · Jun 30, 2023

as “clearly established federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court.” … Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 391 (2000) (“It is past question that the rule set forth in Strickland qualifies as ‘clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States.’”).

Hootstein v. Collins

928 F. Supp. 2d 326 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Mar 8, 2013

was clearly established at the time of defendants’ actions. … to qualified immunity. .

Hickson v. Marina Associates

743 F. Supp. 2d 362 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Sep 27, 2010

“Where a defendant asserts a qualified immunity defense in a motion for summary judgment, the plaintiff bears the initial burden of showing that the defendant’s conduct violated some clearly established statutory or constitutional … Qualified immunity is applicable unless the official’s conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right. 9 *370 At the outset, the Court looks to determine whether the State defendants’ actions violated a clearly

O'DONNELL v. Brown

335 F. Supp. 2d 787 · District Court, W.D. Michigan · Jul 30, 2004

Qualified immunity shields from liability government officials performing discretionary functions when their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would … If, on the other hand, the verbal order arrived after the entry, the CPS Defendants violated clearly established Fourth Amendment rights and cannot receive qualified immunity.

Zempel v. Cygan

916 F. Supp. 889 · District Court, E.D. Wisconsin · Mar 1, 1996

The doctrine of qualified immunity provides that “government officials performing discretionary functions, generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established … When immunity from suit is sought by invocation of the doctrine of qualified immunity, the plaintiff has the burden of establishing the existence of a clearly established right. Liebenstein v.

Fleming v. Dowdell

434 F. Supp. 2d 1138 · District Court, M.D. Alabama · Mar 29, 2005

Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, “government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established ... … Alternatively, the court finds that Poe is entitled to qualified immunity, as Fleming has not demonstrated that Poe's conduct violated clearly established constitutional rights of which a reasonable person should have known

Peterson v. NORTH DAKOTA EX REL. ND UNIVERSITY

240 F. Supp. 2d 1055 · District Court, D. North Dakota · Jan 3, 2003

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity shields state officials from civil liability when their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. … In other words, the qualified immunity defense fails if the official violates a clearly established constitutional or statutory right of which a reasonable person would have known.

Byrnes v. Manchester, N H , et al.

2012 DNH 028 · District Court, D. New Hampshire · Jan 31, 2012

the right was ‘clearly established’ at the time of the defendant's alleged violation.’” … It was also not clearly established, as a matter of federal law, that a vehicle stop, based upon a belief that Manders’s taunt qualified as disorderly conduct under applicable state law, would clearly violate Byrnes’s

Collins Bey, Robert v. Gavin, Eileen

District Court, W.D. Wisconsin · Sep 26, 2024

But the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit has warned against applying qualified immunity in Eighth Amendment cases because the merits of those claims and qualified immunity “effectively collapse into one” question … For purposes of qualified immunity, that legal duty need not be litigated and then established disease by disease or injury by injury.”).

Brent v. United States

66 F. Supp. 2d 1287 · District Court, S.D. Florida · Aug 2, 1999

For a right to be “clearly established” 'for qualified immunity purposes, previous case law must have developed it in a concrete factual context so as to make it obvious to a reasonable government actor that his actions violate … Grim the qualified immunity motion is GRANTED.

De Villar v. City of New York

628 F. Supp. 80 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jan 27, 1986

violate clearly established federal statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. … Gliedman and Silverman are therefore within their qualified immunity and are entitled to summary judgment dismissing the action. 4 *85 III.