Case law

Metro Charities, Inc. v. Moore

748 F. Supp. 1156 · District Court, S.D. Mississippi · Aug 24, 1990

For that reason, where the defense is one of prose-cutorial immunity, as opposed to qualified immunity, there may be no inquiry into the defendants’ state of mind. … Qualified Immunity State officials sued in their individual capacities enjoy a qualified immunity unless their actions “violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have

McCloud v. Rosanne Kane of New York State Division of Parole

491 F. Supp. 2d 312 · District Court, E.D. New York · Jun 4, 2007

As to Qualified Immunity A government employee is entitled to qualified immunity under Section 1983 where “(1) [her] actions did not violate clearly established law, or (2) it was objectively reasonable for [her] to believe … Having failed to discuss this right, the Court finds that the defendant did not succeed in establishing that this right was not clearly established at the time she imposed the curfew on the plaintiff, or that it was objectively

Cook v. Board of Educ. for Logan County

671 F. Supp. 1110 · District Court, S.D. West Virginia · Oct 19, 1987

The basis of their motion is the doctrine of qualified immunity. A. … That immunity, they concede, is not absolute, but rather, is qualified. In Wood v.

McCormack v. Cheers

818 F. Supp. 584 · District Court, S.D. New York · Apr 1, 1993

to qualified immunity under Harlow v. … 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 statutory or

Interboro Institute, Inc. v. Maurer

956 F. Supp. 188 · District Court, N.D. New York · Feb 18, 1997

Qualified Immunity “Government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … Yet, even if the rights in question are clearly established, a government actor may still be shielded by qualified immunity if “it was objectively reasonable for the public official to believe that his acts did not violate

Shibley v. Begin

District Court, D. New Hampshire · Mar 26, 1998

Thus the first step in the qualified immunity test is for the court to determine whether the right violated was clearly established. … Although most rights when cast in sufficiently general terms can be declared clearly established, the Supreme Court has stated clearly that the qualified immunity question must be addressed on a more fact-specific level

Better Broadview Party v. Walters

159 F. Supp. 3d 885 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Feb 1, 2016

“Qualified immunity shields government officials from liability under Section 1983 for actions taken while performing discretionary functions, unless their conduct violates clearly established statutory or constitutional … “A plaintiff bears the burden of establishing that the constitutional right was clearly established.” Id.

Fiordalisi v. Zubek

342 F. Supp. 2d 737 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Oct 27, 2004

Because Zubek invokes qualified immunity, Fiordalisi must also show that there is a genuine issue as whether Zubek is immune. C. … Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511 , 105 S.Ct. 2806 , 86 L.Ed.2d 411 (1985)] clearly establishes that an order rejecting the defense of qualified immunity at either the dismissal stage or the summary judgment stage is a 'final' judgment

Bogle v. City of Warner Robins

953 F. Supp. 1563 · District Court, M.D. Georgia · Feb 12, 1997

The Court further finds that the individual police officers did not violate a clearly established constitutional right of Plaintiffs, and therefore are entitled to qualified immunity. … Dicta is particularly unhelpful in qualified immunity cases where we seek to identify clearly established law.” Hamilton, 80 F.3d at 1530 .

Nitschneider v. Miller

821 F. Supp. 1258 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · May 6, 1993

Qualified Immunity 4 Next, Miller contends that he is entitled to qualified immunity from any damages relating to the disciplinary actions taken against the plaintiffs. … Qualified immunity serves to shield officials performing discretionary functions from individual liability, unless their decisions violate clearly established constitutional or statutory rights. 5 Harlow v.

Labrec v. Meeker

345 F. Supp. 3d 1040 · District Court, W.D. Wisconsin · Nov 7, 2018

In the alternative, defendants contend that they are entitled to qualified immunity, which applies unless, under the plaintiff's version of the facts, the law at the relevant time was clearly established that the defendants … There is no doubt that this right was clearly established prior to Steven's suicide attempt."); Hall v.

Casanova v. City of Brookshire

119 F. Supp. 2d 639 · District Court, S.D. Texas · Sep 7, 2000

A defendant "is entitled to qualified immunity unless he violated a constitutional right that was clearly established at the time of his conduct." Blackwell, 34 F.3d at 302-03 ; see Harper v. … In considering a claim of qualified immunity, the court must make a two-step inquiry: First, the court must determine whether the plaintiff has alleged a violation of a clearly established constitutional right.

Bridgeforth v. Bronson

584 F. Supp. 2d 108 · District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 3, 2008

Qualified immunity protects government officials from paying damages and facing suit in civil actions where the officials were performing a discretionary function that did not “violate clearly established statuto *118 ry … The qualified immunity analysis involves two steps.

Smith v. United States

723 F. Supp. 1300 · District Court, C.D. Illinois · Oct 27, 1989

In the case at bar, the statutory and constitutional rights which Defendants allegedly violated were clearly established and a reasonable person would have known of them. … Thus, the Defendants are not entitled to rely on a defense of qualified immunity in this case.

Pollara v. Seymour

150 F. Supp. 2d 393 · District Court, N.D. New York · Jul 18, 2001

statute, the conduct in this case violated no clearly established right. … Therefore, defendants’ claim of qualified immunity is rejected. 9 V.

Marrs v. Boles

51 F. Supp. 2d 1127 · District Court, D. Kansas · Jul 15, 1998

Qualified immunity protects public officials performing discretionary functions unless their conduct violates clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. … That right was clearly established at the time of Mr. Reiss’s arrest.

Bernofsky v. Road Home Corp.

741 F. Supp. 2d 773 · District Court, W.D. Louisiana · Sep 30, 2010

The parties do not dispute that the agencies qualify as the “state” for purposes of Eleventh Amendment immunity. … Absent a statute that clearly and expressly abrogates the state’s immunity, the court will not presume such intent. See Atascadero, 473 U.S. 234 at 240 , 105 S.Ct. at 3146 .

Pitts v. City of Cuba

910 F. Supp. 2d 1161 · District Court, E.D. Missouri · Nov 16, 2012

For the purposes of qualified immunity analysis, “clearly established” means the contours of the right must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that right. … Even if a violation could have been established, Plaintiffs would have to show that the right was clearly established to bar the affirmative defense of qualified immunity. The Supreme Court, in Reichle v.

Lynch Ex Rel. Lynch v. City of Mount Vernon

567 F. Supp. 2d 459 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jun 13, 2008

Qualiñed Immunity Qualified immunity shields government officials from liability for civil damages resulting from their performance of discretionary functions unless their conduct violated a clearly established constitutional … “Even where the plaintiffs federal rights and the scope of the official’s permissible conduct are clearly established, the qualified immunity defense protects a government actor if it was ‘objectively reasonable’ for him

Neal v. Lewis

325 F. Supp. 2d 1231 · District Court, D. Kansas · Jul 20, 2004

plead the defense of qualified immunity; plaintiff bears a heavy burden, he must show that defendants’ actions violated a constitutional or statutory right and that the right allegedly violated was clearly established at … Defendants’ conduct did not violate a clearly established law.