Case law

Crawford v. Indiana Department of Correction

937 F. Supp. 785 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Aug 15, 1996

The defendant state officials were, therefore, entitled to qualified immunity. Id. at 1346, 1352 ; see also Gorman v. … Nov. 22, 1995) (holding it was not “clearly established” that the ADA applied to state prisons in July, 1994). There is a lack of authority directly contradicting Torcasio .

Augustine v. Edgar

576 F. Supp. 1141 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Dec 13, 1983

“Qualified immunity” is the norm for executive officials in general. … The court discussed the defense of qualified immunity for government officials.

Williams v. Cobb

2004 DNH 187 · District Court, D. New Hampshire · Dec 27, 2004

Qualified Immunity “The doctrine of qualified immunity protects ‘government officials performing discretionary functions . . . from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established … A two-part inquiry is used to determine whether an officer is entitled to qualified immunity.

DeLaFont v. Beckelman

264 F. Supp. 2d 650 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Apr 4, 2003

Time Line of Case Law A state actor is shielded from liability if their conduct does not violate a clearly established constitutional right. Harlow v. … Qualified Immunity As a general rule, courts engage in a two-part inquiry to determine whether a defendant is immune from damages.

Estrada v. Torres

646 F. Supp. 2d 253 · District Court, D. Connecticut · Jul 24, 2009

The doctrine of qualified immunity would protect Defendant if “(1) his conduct does not violate a clearly established constitutional right, or (2) it was ‘objectively reasonable’ for the officer to believe his conduct did … not violate a clearly established constitutional right.”

Wilson v. Shelby County, Ala.

95 F. Supp. 2d 1258 · District Court, N.D. Alabama · May 4, 2000

Qualified Immunity The undersigned also respectfully disagrees with Judge Acker’s assessment that qualified immunity shields the defendant from an award of damages. … It is the norm; a public official loses the shield of qualified immunity only if the factual contours of the right allegedly violated were so well-established in concrete terms that no reasonable officer under the circumstances

Castrello Merced v. Hernandez Colon

740 F. Supp. 108 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Jun 20, 1990

In the alternative, defendants argue they are entitled to qualified immunity from damages because the dismissals were not, at the time, a “clearly established” violation of constitutional rights. Méndez-Palou v. … not ‘clearly established.’ ” Méndez-Palou, 813 F.2d at 1259.

S.T. v. City of Ceres

327 F. Supp. 3d 1261 · District Court, E.D. California · Aug 30, 2018

"The threshold inquiry in a qualified immunity analysis is whether the plaintiff's allegations, if true, establish a constitutional violation." Wilkins v. … Here, "[i]f jury accepts plaintiff's version of the facts to be true, the officers would not be entitled to qualified immunity 'because it is a violation of clearly established law for an officer to use deadly force against

Daughenbaugh v. City of Tiffin

949 F. Supp. 1315 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Dec 30, 1996

Qualified Immunity Even if the defendants in this ease violated plaintiffs Fourth Amendment rights, the officers are entitled to summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity. In Harlow v. … Thus, to prevail in the face of a qualified immunity defense, plaintiff must show that: 1) he “has a clearly established statutory or constitutional right,” Megenity v.

Hein v. Kimbrough

942 F. Supp. 2d 1308 · District Court, N.D. Georgia · Apr 30, 2013

established on that point at the time of the dismissal, and hence defendants were entitled to qualified immunity. … DEFENDANT KIMBROUGH ENJOYS QUALIFIED IMMUNITY ON PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDMENT CLAIM The pivotal question in determining qualified immunity here is whether the law advocated by the plaintiff was clearly established at the time

Romero ex rel. Romero v. Board of County Commissioners

202 F. Supp. 3d 1223 · District Court, D. New Mexico · Aug 15, 2016

Once the plaintiff has established the inference that the defendant’s conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right, a qualified-immunity defense generally fails. See Cannon v. … THE LAW WAS CLEARLY ESTABLISHED, SO THE COURT DENIES THE QUALIFIED IMMUNITY DEFENSE.

Homeowner/Contractor Consultants, Inc. v. Ascension Parish Planning & Zoning Commission

32 F. Supp. 2d 384 · District Court, M.D. Louisiana · Jan 6, 1999

, or in the alternative, qualified immunity. … The Fifth Circuit has not accorded absolute legislative immunity to such an action by a local governing body. 35 (II) Qualified Immunity Defendants argue in the alternative that they are entitled to the defense of qualified

Wysocki v. Crump

838 F. Supp. 2d 763 · District Court, C.D. Illinois · Dec 20, 2011

Finally, Defendant asserts that she is entitled to qualified immunity because it is not clearly established that suspending T.W. after hearing Plaintiffs complaint would violate a clearly established constitutional right. … Because Plaintiff cannot show that Defendant violated a clearly established constitutional right, Defendant is 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.

Keating v. City of Miami

598 F. Supp. 2d 1315 · District Court, S.D. Florida · Jan 20, 2009

Qualified Immunity First, all of the individual Defendants have asserted that they are entitled to qualified immunity. … Defendants argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity with respect to the First Amendment violations asserted against them in their individual capacity as it is not clearly established that it is unconstitutional

Campbell v. City of Indianola

117 F. Supp. 3d 854 · District Court, N.D. Mississippi · Jul 24, 2015

“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 … If, however, the officer violated a constitutional right, the Court must “ask the ‘qualified immunity question’ of whether the right was clearly established at the time of the conduct.”. Id. A.

Arucan v. Cambridge E. Healthcare/Sava Seniorcare LLC

347 F. Supp. 3d 318 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Mar 30, 2018

Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity if "they did not violate any of [plaintiff's] constitutional rights or (2) the violated rights, if any, were not 'clearly established' at the time of the alleged misconduct." … Rather, an officer is entitled to qualified immunity under § 1983 'if he or she could reasonably (even if erroneously) have believed that the arrest was lawful, in light of clearly established law and the information possessed

Frisenda v. INCORPORATED VILLAGE OF MALVERNE

775 F. Supp. 2d 486 · District Court, E.D. New York · Mar 31, 2011

Tollaksen, 257 Fed.Appx. 400, 401 (2d Cir.2007) (explaining that government officers “are protected by qualified immunity if their actions do not violate clearly established law, or it was objectively reasonable for them … judgment, summary judgment on qualified immunity is inappropriate.

Ohio v. United States

154 F. Supp. 3d 621 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Jan 5, 2016

Teachers Ins. & Annuity Ass’n, 230 F.3d 1358 , 2000 WL 1290357 , at *2 (6th Cir.2000) (unpublished table decision) (holding that disability plan established by state university for benefit of employees qualified for governmental … Merit Behavioral Care Corp., 70 F.Supp.2d 443, 445-47 (D.Vt.1999) (holding that healthcare plan established by the State of Vermont for eligible employees qualified for governmental plan exclusion); Garvey v.

Hill v. Board of Trustees of Michigan State University

182 F. Supp. 2d 621 · District Court, W.D. Michigan · Nov 16, 2001

The two-step inquiry for the Court when analyzing the assertion of qualified immunity is (1) whether a constitutional right would have been violated on the facts alleged and, if so, (2) whether the right was clearly established … Therefore, the Court need not embark on the second element of the qualified immunity defense inquiry into whether that right was clearly established. Saucier, 121 S.Ct. at 2156.