Case law

Shipley v. First Federal S & L Ass'n of Delaware

703 F. Supp. 1122 · District Court, D. Delaware · Dec 30, 1988

Qualified Immunity. … To have acted in good faith, the defendant must prove that he or she did not know, or reasonably should not have known, that his or her actions violated clearly established constitutional rights.

Croft v. Harder

730 F. Supp. 342 · District Court, D. Kansas · Nov 9, 1989

Qualified immunity is an affirmative defense that protects government officials from personal liability unless their actions violate clearly established law of which a reasonable person would have known. Harlow v. … Once the qualified immunity defense is properly raised, a plaintiff must show: first, that the defendant's conduct violated federal law; and, second, that such law was clearly established when the alleged violation occurred

Meinert v. City of Prairie Village, Kan.

87 F. Supp. 2d 1175 · District Court, D. Kansas · Jan 31, 2000

Qualified Immunity and Fourth Amendment Claims 3 The qualified immunity doctrine shields government officials from personal liability under § 42 U.S.C.1983 “unless their conduct violates ‘clearly established statutory or … If the plaintiff is unable to “demonstrate[ ] both that the defendant’s conduct violated a federal right and the right was clearly established, the defendant must be granted qualified immunity.”

Carrillo v. Ward

770 F. Supp. 815 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jun 4, 1991

DISCUSSION Defendants assert that plaintiff cannot maintain her Fourth Amendment claims or her claim of deprivation of liberty because they are immune from suit under the doctrine of qualified immunity, that plaintiff’s Fourteenth … I The doctrine of qualified immunity protects “government officials performing discretionary functions ... from liability for civil damages in so far as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional

Culberson v. Doan

125 F. Supp. 2d 252 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Jan 1, 2001

“The key inquiry in analyzing a claim of qualified immunity is whether the defendant’s alleged conduct violated clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … clearly established right.

Brodnik v. Lanham

District Court, S.D. West Virginia · Mar 30, 2018

The defense of qualified immunity shields a government official from liability for civil monetary damages if the officer's conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or … Qualified immunity is applicable unless the official's conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right. Pearson v. Callahan, 129 S.

Boykin v. Bloomsburg University

893 F. Supp. 400 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 7, 1995

In order to hold Kreisher liable, the Boykins must override his qualified immunity by showing that, as a government official acting in a discretionary capacity, Kreisher violated a clearly established statutory and constitutional … The determination of whether the actions of Kreisher violated any clearly established statutory or constitutional rights is a pure question of law. See Medina v.

Metro Produce Distributors, Inc. v. City of Minneapolis

473 F. Supp. 2d 955 · District Court, D. Minnesota · Jan 24, 2007

Amend Answer seeking to add the affirmative defenses of qualified immunity and failure to mitigate damages. The pretrial scheduling order established a December 1, 2006 deadline for amending the pleadings. … Qualified immunity is clearly distinct from official immunity, and thus, it is not reasonable to believe that asserting one gives notice of the other. See Gordon ex. rel Gordon v.

Boles v. Neet

333 F. Supp. 2d 1005 · District Court, D. Colorado · Aug 20, 2004

He further found that the second inquiry of the test for qualified immunity would be framed in this case as “whether the right to a reasonable oppor *1009 tunity to exercise one’s religion was clearly established at the time … The Magistrate Judge therefore denied defendant’s assertion of qualified immunity as to this claim.

Greenberg v. Mynczywor

667 F. Supp. 901 · District Court, D. New Hampshire · Jul 31, 1987

Defendants’ Claims to Qualified Immunity Defendants argue that because Chief Mynczywor was acting in his official capacity when the acts at issue in this litigation occurred, the doctrine of qualified immunity provides both … reasonable because it creates the unnecessary danger of an unlawful arrest, and qualified immunity is lost.

Lokey v. Richardson

534 F. Supp. 1015 · District Court, N.D. California · Feb 16, 1982

Strickland rule (as applied in Navarette), the immunity defense would be unavailing to these defendants if the constitutional right allegedly infringed by them was clearly established at the time of their challenged conduct … We do not, of course, imply that the Supreme Court’s intent is to create a disincentive to the formation of clearly established guidelines in the administration of prisons.

Varrone v. Bilotti

867 F. Supp. 1145 · District Court, E.D. New York · Oct 6, 1994

The doctrine of qualified immunity shields officials from suit if a reasonable official could have believed his conduct “‘to be lawful, in light of clearly established law and the information [he] possessed.’ ” Hunter v. … on qualified immunity grounds.

Thompson v. City of Birmingham

5 F. Supp. 3d 1304 · District Court, N.D. Alabama · Mar 14, 2014

Under federal law, it is well settled that qualified immunity protects government officials performing discretionary functions from civil suit and liability where then-conduct does not violate “clearly established statutory … It has been noted that discretionary function immunity and qualified immunity both involve a “core issue” of whether a defendant violated clearly established law.

Committee to Protect our Agricultural Water v. Occidental Oil & Gas Corp.

235 F. Supp. 3d 1132 · District Court, E.D. California · Jan 20, 2017

Government officials enjoy qualified immunity from civil damages unless their conduct violates “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person, would have known'.” Jeffers v. … or constitutional right; and (ii) whether the right at issue was “clearly established.”

Welch v. THEODORIDES-BUSTLE

677 F. Supp. 2d 1283 · District Court, N.D. Florida · Jan 5, 2010

Qualified Immunity The defendants assert that, as public officials or employees, they have qualified immunity. Qualified immunity protects “all but the plainly incompetent or those who knowingly violate the law.” … Thus a public officer or employee may be held individually liable only if his or her conduct violates clearly established law.

Lehman v. Kornblau

134 F. Supp. 2d 281 · District Court, E.D. New York · Mar 8, 2001

. *295 Qualified immunity applies to the discretionary functions of state officials if their conduct does not violate “clearly established” statutory or constitutional rights of which “a reasonable person would have known … Thus, “public officials are entitled to qualified immunity if (1) their conduct does not violate clearly established constitutional rights, or (2) it was objectively reasonable for them to believe their acts did not violate

Konopka v. Borough of Wyoming

383 F. Supp. 2d 666 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 25, 2005

Accordingly, the Court finds that the right at issue was clearly established at the time of Defendant Ra-gantesi’s actions. Consequently, Defendant Ragantesi is not entitled to qualified immunity. … Accordingly, Defendant Burda is not entitled to qualified immunity.

Jenkins v. University of Minnesota

50 F. Supp. 3d 1084 · District Court, D. Minnesota · Sep 25, 2014

Standard of Review Qualified immunity shields government officials from liability if “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … “A Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal based on qualified immunity is appropriate when the immunity is established on the face of the complaint.” Dornheim v.

Scott v. Conley

937 F. Supp. 2d 60 · District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 9, 2013

Remaining Defendants Are Shielded by Qualified Immunity Defendants argue that the named individual defendants have qualified immunity from suit. … No “clearly established” Due Process right Scott has also failed to demonstrate that defendants’ actions could have violated any “clearly established” due process right.

Ruffino v. City of Hoover

891 F. Supp. 2d 1247 · District Court, N.D. Alabama · Aug 29, 2012

We call this defense “qualified immunity” because the official is immune from a damage lawsuit, qualified upon his ability to show that he did not knowingly violate the plaintiffs clearly established constitutional right. … “The threshold inquiry a court must undertake in a qualified immunity analysis is whether plaintiffs allegations, if true, establish a constitutional violation.”