Case law

Jackson v. City of Columbus

67 F. Supp. 2d 839 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Jul 28, 1998

The focus of the qualified immunity analysis is on the objective reasonableness of the official’s conduct as measured by reference to clearly established law and the information which the official possessed. … In addition, since plaintiff has failed to make out a violation of a clearly established constitutional right, the individual defendants are entitled to qualified immunity on plaintiffs claims under §§ 1981, 1983 and 1985

Ward v. Hickey

781 F. Supp. 63 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Aug 31, 1990

Fitzgerald, supra, defines the contours of the qualified immunity defense. … An official’s success in claiming a qualified immunity for his actions is dependent upon the “objective reasonableness of (his) conduct, as measured by reference to clearly established law.” Harlow v.

D.R. Ex Rel. Robinson v. Phyfer

906 F. Supp. 637 · District Court, M.D. Alabama · Dec 6, 1995

these defendants to qualified immunity. … The court notes that Plaintiff’s Brief to Show Cause, when addressing the qualified immunity issue, fails to designate the court of origin when citing cases that allegedly clearly establish the *642 Plaintiff's rights.

Harris v. Wydra

531 F. Supp. 2d 233 · District Court, D. Connecticut · Dec 28, 2007

Qualified immunity shields government officials whose conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or con *241 stitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. … Thus, a qualified immunity defense is established where “(a) the defendant’s action did not violate clearly established law, or (b) it was objectively reasonable for the defendant to believe that his action did not violate

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.

Love v. Franklin Cnty.

376 F. Supp. 3d 740 · District Court, E.D. Kentucky · Mar 27, 2019

C Federal 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 person would … Second, the court asks whether the right at issue was "clearly established." Id.

Atkins v. City of Chicago

441 F. Supp. 2d 921 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Aug 11, 2006

Qualified Immunity State officials enjoy qualified immunity and “generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of … There is a two-step test for an official’s entitlement to qualified immunity (Miller v.

Sylvester v. Fogley

383 F. Supp. 2d 1135 · District Court, W.D. Arkansas · Jul 28, 2005

C) Defendants’ Claim of Entitlement to Qualified Immunity Having found no constitutional rights violation, the Court need not reach the issue *1144 of qualified immunity. … We note, however, in the event that a violation had occurred, the Court would have found Defendants to be entitled to qualified immunity. The qualified immunity analysis consists of a two-part inquiry.

Bradley v. United States

164 F. Supp. 2d 437 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Sep 10, 2001

Unless a plaintiff alleges a violation of a “clearly established statutory or constitutional right of which a reasonable person would have known,” a federal employee is immune from suit. Harlow v. … It cannot be found here that there was a clearly established rule that prohibited Defendants conduct on that night. The Defendants would therefore be entitled to qualified immunity.

Trafton v. Devlin

43 F. Supp. 2d 56 · District Court, D. Maine · Mar 4, 1999

prosecutors violated Plaintiffs’ “clearly established constitutional rights.” … United States, 99 F.3d 1200, 1215 (1st Cir.1996) (“a court may ... bypass the qualified immunity analysis if it would be futile because current law forecloses the claim on the merits”).

Green v. United States Ex Rel. Department of Agriculture

8 F. Supp. 2d 983 · District Court, W.D. Michigan · Feb 27, 1998

Qualified immunity allows public officials to perform their duties without threat of liability when the law in a particular situation is not clearly established. … any clearly established right.

Marcum v. Catron

70 F. Supp. 2d 728 · District Court, E.D. Kentucky · Sep 28, 1999

Qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions from liability for civil damages if, at the time the challenged action occurred, their conduct did not violate clearly established law. … The law governing his actions simply was not clearly established. Accordingly, the defendant’s motion for qualified immunity will be granted.

Bookenberger v. Terrebonne Parish

District Court, E.D. Louisiana · Aug 16, 2019

La. 2009) (stating that qualified immunity protects government officials from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights … LEXIS 25035, at *19 (stating that the first step in the qualified immunity analysis is to determine whether the plaintiff has alleged a violation of a clearly established constitutional right).

Stagemeyer v. County of Dawson, NE.

205 F. Supp. 2d 1107 · District Court, D. Nebraska · Mar 25, 2002

Qualified Immunity Public officials are entitled to qualified immunity from liability for damages when “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would … [I]f the law claimed to have been violated was clearly established, the qualified immunity defense ordinarily fails, since a reasonably competent public official should know the law governing his conduct.

Zupan v. Brown

5 F. Supp. 2d 792 · District Court, N.D. California · Mar 23, 1998

Finally, Defendants assert that they are entitled to qualified immunity as to Mr. Zupan’s claims because their conduct did not violate clearly established law. Mr. … 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 person would have

Fralin & Waldron, Inc. v. County of Henrico, Va.

474 F. Supp. 1315 · District Court, E.D. Virginia · Aug 10, 1979

Qualified immunity extends only to immunity from damages. Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 238-9 , 94 S.Ct. 1683 , 40 L.Ed.2d 90 (1974). … In this respect the defendant Planning Commission members are subject to suit and may be entitled to a qualified immunity from damages only.

Strickland v. Mahoning Township

647 F. Supp. 2d 422 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 8, 2009

Qualified immunity does not apply where state officials violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Wright v. … For a qualified immunity analysis, therefore, the court must examine: 1) whether officials violated a constitutional right and 2) whether that right was clearly established at the time. Id.

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.

Portnoy v. Pennick

595 F. Supp. 1000 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 17, 1984

Additionally, the Supreme Court pointed out that the qualified immunity granted officials who perform discretionary functions can be avoided only if the officials act contrary to clearly established statutory or constitutional … These provisions clearly and unequivocally grant an employee additional rights. Defendants’ argument that they are entitled to qualified immunity because the recent Pennsylvania Supreme Court decision in Sterling v.

McCullough v. City of Atlantic City

137 F. Supp. 2d 557 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Mar 21, 2001

Qualified Immunity Under § 1983 Defendants argue that Plaintiffs § 1983 claim against the individual Defendants are barred by the doctrine of qualified immunity. 5 Qualified immunity shields government officials performing … Gable, 823 F.2d 723 (3d Cir.1987), the Third Circuit, in considering the issue of qualified immunity, stated that “as of 1982 the law was clearly established that a public employee could not be demoted in retaliation for