Case law

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.”

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.

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.

O'HAGAN v. Soto

565 F. Supp. 422 · District Court, S.D. New York · May 2, 1983

does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … Mayone, 626 F.2d at 253 (“a public official may be entitled to a defense of qualified immunity if he can establish that he acted in good faith”).

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.

Rogers v. United States

696 F. Supp. 2d 472 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 10, 2010

The doctrine of qualified immunity insulates government officials from liability for damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established rights. Harlow v. … The privilege of qualified immunity, however, can be overcome when state officials violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Wright v.

Rutherford v. Katonah-Lewisboro School District

670 F. Supp. 2d 230 · District Court, S.D. New York · Nov 3, 2009

Public officials are entitled to qualified immunity if “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. … Levy, 401 F.3d 75, 100-02 (2d Cir.2005) (rejecting qualified immunity defense because previous Second Circuit decisions clearly established the specific rights in question).

Shadburne v. Dalkon Shield Trust

851 F. Supp. 712 · District Court, D. Maryland · May 19, 1994

The Fourth Circuit, recently summarized the law of qualified immunity: Qualified immunity shields a governmental official from liability for civil monetary damages if the officer’s “conduct does not violate clearly established … Under the facts of this case, defendant is clearly entitled to qualified immunity. IV.

Grimes v. State Of Delaware

District Court, D. Delaware · Mar 28, 2024

The clearly established federal law governing insufficient evidence claims is the standard set forth by the Supreme Court in Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979). See Eley v. … Erickson, 712 F.3d 837, 847 (3d Cir. 2013) (“The clearly established federal law governing Eley’s [insufficient evidence] claim was determined in Jackson.”).

Clifford v. Jacobs

739 F. Supp. 957 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 25, 1990

If they were engaged, however, in executive duties, then they were entitled to merely qualified immunity, which would require the court to enquire whether their conduct ”violate[d] clearly established statutory or constitutional … However, once the official is determined to have only qualified immunity, then the court must determine whether he violated clearly established statutory or constitutional rights.

Anello v. Anderson

191 F. Supp. 3d 262 · District Court, W.D. New York · Jun 10, 2016

microphone did not violate any clearly established law. … He further asserts that he is entitled to qualified immunity because it was not clearly established that “merely banging a gavel,” with no other action, violates the First Amendment.

Heidorf v. Town of Northumberland

985 F. Supp. 250 · District Court, N.D. New York · Sep 17, 1997

Qualified immunity also will protect a defendant, even where the right was clearly established, if it was objectively reasonable for the defendant to believe the acts did not violate that right. See Benitez v. … Issues of fact exist, however, as to whether defendant King is entitled to qualified immunity.

Okocci v. KLEIN, CO.

270 F. Supp. 2d 603 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 9, 2003

Legal Standard for Qualified Immunity The goal of qualified immunity is to “avoid excessive disruption of government and permit the resolution of many insubstantial claims on summary judgment.” Harlow v. … If the law was not established clearly, qualified immunity holds since a public official “could not reasonably be expected to anticipate subsequent legal developments.” Harlow, 457 U.S. at 818, 102 S.Ct. 2727 .

Ross v. Cecil County Department of Social Services

878 F. Supp. 2d 606 · District Court, D. Maryland · Jul 12, 2012

Qualified immunity must be pled by the defendant official. Id. at 815. Once the official raises a qualified immunity defense, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to show that the official’s conduct violated the law. … on whether the constitutional right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation. 15 The Fourth Circuit has emphasized “the importance of resolving the question of qualified immunity at the summary judgment

Sanders v. District of Columbia

16 F. Supp. 2d 10 · District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 10, 1998

Government officials are protected by qualified immunity when they perform discretionary functions and "their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would … Accordingly, Barry and Soulsby's motion to dismiss on qualified immunity grounds is denied. H.

Jones v. Murphy

470 F. Supp. 2d 537 · District Court, D. Maryland · Jan 4, 2007

Qualified Immunity The Wardens also claim qualified immunity with respect to all allegations against them. … presentment is a clearly established violation of constitutional rights.

Saunders-El v. Tsoulos

1 F. Supp. 2d 845 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Mar 25, 1998

Defendants contend that they are entitled to qualified immunity because there is no clearly established right for MSTA members to participate in Ramadan at Joliet. … Qualified immunity is available to shield government officials who are performing discretionary functions from liability for civil damages “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional

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.

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.