Case law

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.

Beach v. City of Olathe

97 F. Supp. 2d 1065 · District Court, D. Kansas · May 31, 2000

under the doctrine of qualified immunity. 1 For the reasons set forth below, that motion is denied. … The court disagrees; Qualified immunity shields an individual government official performing discretionary functions from liability for civil damages insofar as his or her conduct does not violate clearly established statutory

Taylor v. Collins

574 F. Supp. 1554 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Nov 21, 1983

And because the City does not enjoy a qualified section 1983 immunity, Garner takes on considerable importance. See Owen v. City of Independence, 445 U.S. 622 , 100 S.Ct. 1398 , 63 L.Ed.2d 673 (1980). … The first of these is the issue of qualified immunity. And the rule of law is clear. A municipality is not entitled to assert the defense of qualified immunity in section 1983 actions. See Owen v.

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.

Johnson v. Hornung

358 F. Supp. 2d 910 · District Court, S.D. California · Feb 17, 2005

Saucier qualified immunity inquiry, whether the constitutional right was clearly established in the factual context presented by this case. … Qualified Immunity 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

Wilkinson ex rel. Wilkinson v. Russell

973 F. Supp. 437 · District Court, D. Vermont · Jul 31, 1997

Defendants contend that Russell’s statements'were privileged under the doctrines of judicial immunity and state qualified immunity. … State Qualified Immunity In Vermont, qualified immunity attaches to lower-level state employees who are “ 1) acting during their employment and acting, or reasonably believing they are acting, within the scope of their authority

Roe v. City of San Diego

289 F.R.D. 604 · District Court, S.D. California · Mar 5, 2013

Second, Sixth, and Twenty-Second Affirmative Defenses — Good Faith, Exercise of Discretion, & Qualified Immunity Defendants’ second, sixth, and twenty-second affirmative defenses all relate to qualified immunity and the relationship … Sept. 14, 2011) (“[G]iven the case law that municipal entities qualify for neither absolute or qualified immunity, plaintiff is free to pursue the entity despite a finding of immunity for individuals, if she has otherwise

Greene v. Cook County Sheriff's Office

79 F. Supp. 3d 790 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Feb 4, 2015

Because Plaintiffs’ right not to lose their job assignments for political reasons was not clearly established, however, Toni Preckwinkle is entitled to qualified immunity. … Plaintiffs have not met their burden to show that their right was clearly, established. President Preckwinkle is, therefore, entitled to ■ qualified immunity.

Davidson v. Coughlin

920 F. Supp. 305 · District Court, N.D. New York · Mar 19, 1996

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY Government officials performing discretionary functions are entitled to qualified immunity “... insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … be granted on qualified immunity grounds. *311 D.

Johnson v. Rankin

844 F. Supp. 2d 716 · District Court, E.D. Virginia · Feb 16, 2012

Qualified Immunity “[Qualified immunity affords government officials greater protection than a simple defense on the merits.” Slattery v. Rizzo, 939 F.2d 213, 216 (4th Cir.1991). … Denyakin’s clearly established right to be free from excessive police force. See Clem, 284 F.3d at 552 . C.

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.”).

Gudger v. District of Columbia

181 F. Supp. 3d 30 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 5, 2016

[because] it is impossible for the court to determine, as a matter of law, what predicate facts exist to decide whether or not the officer’s conduct clearly violated established law”)). … Marable’s last known address, which seems to directly cut against Sergeant Millsaps’s qualified immunity defense. See id.

Fann v. City of Cleveland, Ohio

616 F. Supp. 305 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Jul 8, 1985

clearly established at the time of the conduct in issue.” … Because those defendants would be entitled to summary judgment based upon qualified immunity, the motion is denied. VI.

Brown v. Rafferty

District Court, E.D. California · Sep 30, 2022

Qualified Immunity 2 Defendant asserts she is entitled to qualified immunity because she did not violate clearly 3 established law. (ECF No. 26-1 at 26.) … Plaintiff argues qualified immunity does not apply.

Payne v. Collins

986 F. Supp. 1036 · District Court, E.D. Texas · Jun 25, 1997

Application of the Summary Judgment Standard When the Movant-Defen-dant Asserts Qualified Immunity 7. … The question of “[w]hether [or not] a defendant [government official] asserting qualified immunity may be personally liable turns on the objective legal reasonableness of [his or her] ... actions assessed in light of clearly

Pew v. Scopino

904 F. Supp. 18 · District Court, D. Maine · Mar 15, 1995

Qualified Immunity When someone sues an official under section 1983 for damages resulting from the performance of the official’s duties, the qualified immunity defense prevents recovery if the conduct in question “does not … would have known that he or she was violating a clearly established right.

Allah v. Al-Hafeez

208 F. Supp. 2d 520 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 24, 2002

on the basis of qualified immunity. … A public official is entitled to qualified immunity from monetary damages unless a reasonable official in his position would know that his specific conduct violated clearly established rights. Anderson v.

Raitport v. Provident National Bank

451 F. Supp. 522 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 12, 1978

However, “[t]he fate of an official with qualified immunity depends upon the circumstances and motivations of his actions, as established by the evidence at trial.” … Both Sullivan and Carrafiello may well enjoy qualified, or “good-faith,” immunity, which is quite another matter. See note 3 supra. 5 .

Bennett v. Monette

507 F. Supp. 2d 514 · District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Aug 8, 2007

The doctrine of qualified immunity shields public officials “from civil liability insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known … Alternatively, even assuming plaintiff established a constitutional violation, plaintiffs claim fails on the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis.

Ellis v. City of Fairburn

852 F. Supp. 1568 · District Court, N.D. Georgia · Mar 4, 1994

Thus, a government official is entitled to a qualified immunity defense if “a reasonable official could have believed [the official’s] actions were lawful in light of clearly established law and the information possessed … the rule *1578 of qualified immunity “from a guarantee of immunity into a rule of pleading,” where any alleged right defined in sufficiently broad terms can be deemed “clearly established”.