Case law

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.

Taylor v. Moore

383 F. Supp. 3d 91 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 6, 2019

"Qualified immunity affords limited protection to public officials faced with liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 , 'insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a … The qualified immunity analysis has two prongs: (1) whether the facts that plaintiff has shown make out a violation of a constitutional right, and (2) whether the right at issue was "clearly established" at the time of defendant's

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.”

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

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

Houck v. City of Prairie Village, Kan.

912 F. Supp. 1428 · District Court, D. Kansas · Jan 16, 1996

In analyzing qualified immunity claims, we first ask if a plaintiff has asserted the violation of a constitutional right at all, and then assess whether that right was clearly established at the time of a defendant’s actions … To reiterate, defendant has conceded the first part of the qualified immunity analysis. He does not contest that plaintiff has alleged the violation of a clearly established right.

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.

Wysinger v. City of Benton Harbor

968 F. Supp. 349 · District Court, W.D. Michigan · Jun 20, 1997

First, the individual defendants assert that they are entitled to both absolute and qualified immunity on plaintiffs federal claims. … Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity, like absolute immunity, is an affirmative defense to § 1983 liability for government officials, though not for municipalities. Noble v. Schmitt, 87 F.3d 157, 160 (6th Cir.1996).

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.

Turner v. Schultz

130 F. Supp. 2d 1216 · District Court, D. Colorado · Feb 15, 2001

“Qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions from individual liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 unless their conduct violates ‘clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of … “When a defendant pleads qualified immunity, the plaintiff has the heavy burden of establishing: (1) that the defendant’s actions violated a federal constitutional or statutory right; and (2) that the right violated was clearly

Meaney v. Dever

170 F. Supp. 2d 46 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Sep 25, 2001

“Government officials performing discretionary functions, generally are shielded [by qualified immunity] from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … The granting of qualified immunity again turns on the third prong of the test: whether an objectively reasonable official would have believed that the action taken violated the clearly established constitutional right.

Charles v. Front Royal Volunteer Fire & Rescue Department, Inc.

21 F. Supp. 3d 620 · District Court, W.D. Virginia · May 13, 2014

The parties have used the term "qualified immunity” in their pleadings. Although the Fourth Circuit has employed this language to describe the qualified privilege, see Merlo v. … The qualified privilege provided by Virginia law does not encompass immunity from suit.

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

Sikorski v. Whorton

631 F. Supp. 2d 1327 · District Court, D. Nevada · May 29, 2009

However, as there appear to be no binding cases discussing this issue, the law is certainly not clearly established, and defendants are entitled to qualified immunity, as more fully discussed below. a) Qualified Immunity … Therefore, the law is not clearly established and defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. 18 3.

Phillips v. Hust

338 F. Supp. 2d 1148 · District Court, D. Oregon · Mar 31, 2004

Qualified Immunity 1. … Constitutional right was clearly established The next, sequential step in the qualified immunity analysis is to determine whether the constitutional right of access *1162 to the courts was “clearly established.” Id.

Arrington v. Ramsey

District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 16, 2009

Ala. 1995) (finding that qualified immunity applies and the plaintiff failed to cite any case law binding on the court "which establishes that a police officer, while acting within the scope of his or her duty, violates … The second prong for assessing a claim of qualified immunity under Saucier requires a 13 plaintiff to show that there was a violation of a clearly established constitutional