Case law

Coscia v. Town of Pembroke, Mass.

715 F. Supp. 2d 212 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jun 4, 2010

Thus, at this very preliminary stage, the allegations are clearly actionable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and do not entitle the officers to a finding of qualified immunity. … Qualified Immunity The individual defendants in this case argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity.

Cronovich v. Dunn

573 F. Supp. 1330 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Sep 21, 1983

damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” 457 U.S. at 818 , 102 S.Ct. at 2738 , 73 L.Ed.2d at 410 . … Nor is there a question but that the law proscribing discrimination on the basis of sex and for retaliatory reasons was clearly established at the time of the alleged discrimination. Reed v.

Lozada v. Weilminster

92 F. Supp. 3d 76 · District Court, E.D. New York · Mar 23, 2015

Section 1983 qualified immunity Plaintiff argues that Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity because their actions violated well-established constitutional rights, and it was not objectively reasonable for Defendants … Reply Mem. 10-12.) 18 “A grant of qualified immunity allows public officials to be ‘shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights

Carter v. Dixon

718 F. Supp. 1389 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Sep 7, 1989

Initially, defendants claim that they are entitled to qualified immunity; but such immunity does not protect an official *1390 whose conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right. See Anderson v. … For this reason, if plaintiffs can prove their allegations that defendants used unreasonable force, then defendants cannot properly invoke the doctrine of qualified immunity.

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.

Pointer v. District of Columbia

736 F. Supp. 2d 2 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 5, 2010

As its name implies, qualified immunity serves as an “immunity from suit rather than a mere defense to liability.” Id. (quoting Mitchell v. … was clearly established.”

Dawson v. Burnett

631 F. Supp. 2d 878 · District Court, W.D. Michigan · May 4, 2009

OBJECTION 3 — Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity where clearly established law does not dictate a conclusion that what an official did would violate the Constitution. … The Court further recommends that Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity as to this latter claim, as a reasonable person would have clearly understood that Plaintiffs allegations state a claim for violation of

Bordeaux v. Lynch

958 F. Supp. 77 · District Court, N.D. New York · Mar 13, 1997

The doctrine of qualified immunity shields government employees “from liability for damages on account of their performance of discretionary official functions ‘insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established … The right to be free from arrest without probable cause is clearly established. Robinson, 821 F.2d at 921 .

Howard v. Ealing

876 F. Supp. 2d 1056 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Jul 10, 2012

“[Qualified immunity protects government officials from liability for civil damages when their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. … Claims of qualified immunity involve two inquiries: (1) whether the official violated a constitutional or statutory right; and (2) whether the right was clearly established at the time of the alleged misconduct. Id.

Kenworthy v. Hargrove

826 F. Supp. 138 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 16, 1993

Finally, Hargrove argues that the issue of her entitlement to qualified immunity meets the criteria for certification. … Therefore, assuming Hargrove took such actions, she violated clearly established due process rights of which a reasonable person would have known.

Kilaab Al Ghashiyah v. Department of Corrections of Wisconsin

250 F. Supp. 2d 1016 · District Court, E.D. Wisconsin · Mar 4, 2003

“Qualified immunity protects government officials from civil liability when performing discretionary functions so long as ‘their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … defense of qualified immunity.”

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).

Rhodes v. Mabus

676 F. Supp. 755 · District Court, S.D. Mississippi · Nov 10, 1987

defendants are protected by *760 their qualified immunity as public officials. 7 In order for an action to be outside the shield of qualified immunity, “in the light of pre-existing law the unlawfulness must be apparent. … Government officials are immune from suit for damages for their official acts as long as their conduct does not violate clearly established constitutional or statutory rights of which a reasonable person would have been aware

Brown v. Mitchell

327 F. Supp. 2d 615 · District Court, E.D. Virginia · Jul 28, 2004

Therefore, Mitchell’s qualified immunity defense turns on the second step of the qualified immunity analysis: whether the right at issue was “clearly established” at the time of the violation. … Instead, the proper resolution of a qualified immunity defense requires an inquiry into whether the right at issue was clearly established in a more particularized and fact intensive sense.

Mujahid v. Sumner

807 F. Supp. 1505 · District Court, D. Hawaii · Nov 12, 1992

Public officials are entitled to qualified immunity from damages for any conduct that “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. … Under the Harlow test, a public official is only not entitled to qualified immunity if the right violated is clearly established. The policy rationale behind this test is two-fold.

Mercer v. Dora B. Schriro, Comm'r of the Dep't of Emergency Servs. & Pub. Prot., the Conn. State Police Union, Inc.

337 F. Supp. 3d 109 · District Court, D. Connecticut · Aug 28, 2018

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 … In general, to overcome the defense of qualified immunity, the right alleged to have been violated must be clearly established at a level of specificity such that "a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing

Taylor v. Florida State Fair Authority

919 F. Supp. 410 · District Court, M.D. Florida · Mar 1, 1996

Dollar, 841 F.2d 1558, 1563 (11th Cir.1988). *413 Qualified immunity protects government officials performing discretionary functions from civil trials and from liability if their conduct violates no “clearly established … Once the public official has made the required showing, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to demonstrate that the public official’s actions violated clearly established constitutional law of which a reasonable person should

Zandhri v. Dortenzio

228 F. Supp. 2d 167 · District Court, D. Connecticut · Oct 31, 2002

If the law was clearly established that the officer’s conduct violated a constitutional right, qualified immunity is inappropriate. … However, the Court’s inquiry into the existence of a clearly established right requires a more narrow scope.

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.

Rush v. Federal Deposit Ins. Corp.

747 F. Supp. 575 · District Court, N.D. California · Oct 4, 1990

The Supreme Court has directed the federal courts to decide the question of qualified immunity before discovery has been conducted, based on whether the federal official’s conduct violates “clearly established statutory or … First, since plaintiff had no vested right to payment under the severance agreement, he had no “clearly established rights” of which Locke could have known.