Case law

Ferris v. District of Columbia

District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 15, 2023

Defendants also argue Plaintiffs cannot overcome qualified immunity because there was no violation of the Plaintiffs’ clearly established Fourth Amendment rights. See id. at 23. … entitled to qualified immunity on this claim.

Daley v. Regional Transportation District

142 F.R.D. 481 · District Court, D. Colorado · Jun 11, 1992

Analysis Government officials who perform discretionary functions are protected by a qualified immunity with respect to those actions that do not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … Thus, in any case where the qualified immunity defense may be applicable, the plaintiffs complaint must contain “all of the factual allegations necessary to sustain a conclusion that defendant violated clearly established

Rodriguez Otero v. Riefkohl

667 F. Supp. 58 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Jun 17, 1987

Defendant has filed a motion for partial summary judgment as to the damage claims, invoking the doctrine of qualified immunity. … Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity on this claim.

Montgomery v. The Board of Trutees of Alabama Agricultural & Mechanical Univeristy

District Court, N.D. Alabama · Jun 25, 2019

Defendants are nonetheless entitled to qualified immunity. … Defendants did not violate clearly established law.

Bernier v. Obama

242 F. Supp. 3d 31 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 17, 2017

was clearly established at the time of the defendant’s alleged misconduct. … Here, Plaintiff’s Bivens claims are easily dismissed on the second prong of the qualified immunity test because the rights Plaintiff claims were violated were not clearly established at the time the alleged violations occurred

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

Didzerekis v. Stewart

41 F. Supp. 2d 840 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Mar 23, 1999

Once a defendant pleads qualified immunity, plaintiff has the burden to demonstrate the existence of a clearly established constitutional right. See Abel v. Miller, 824 F.2d 1522, 1534 (7th Cir.1987). … qualified immunity.

Couden v. Duffey

305 F. Supp. 2d 379 · District Court, D. Delaware · Feb 18, 2004

Qualified immunity insulates government officials performing discretionary functions “from liability for civil damages in so far as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of … Where a defendant asserts a qualified immunity defense in a motion for summary judgment, the plaintiff bears the initial burden of showing that the defendant’s conduct violated some clearly established statutory or constitutional

Hernandez v. City of San Jose

241 F. Supp. 3d 959 · District Court, N.D. California · Mar 14, 2017

The defense of 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 … A court considering a claim of qualified immunity must determine: (1) whether the plaintiff has alleged the deprivation of an actual constitutional right, and (2) whether such right was clearly established such that it would

Anderson v. New York State Division of Parole

546 F. Supp. 816 · District Court, S.D. New York · Sep 8, 1982

Defendant Hammock would at best be entitled to a qualified good faith immunity. See infra. … Cross (5th Cir. 1981) 635 F.2d 476 (qualified immunity only); Douglas v. Muncy (4th Cir. 1978) 570 F.2d 499 (absolute immunity); Thompson v.

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.

Elmendorf v. Howell

962 F. Supp. 326 · District Court, N.D. New York · May 5, 1997

Qualified Immunity The defendants cross-move for summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity. … 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

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

Arrington v. Ramsey

District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 16, 2009

Ala. 1995) (finding that qualified immunity applies and the plaintiff failed to cite any case law binding on the court "which establishes that a police officer, while acting within the scope of his or her duty, violates … The second prong for assessing a claim of qualified immunity under Saucier requires a 13 plaintiff to show that there was a violation of a clearly established constitutional

Hawkins v. District of Columbia

District Court, District of Columbia · May 23, 2011

“Because qualified immunity is an immunity from suit[,] . . . we have repeatedly stressed the importance of resolving immunity questions at the earliest possible stage in litigation.” … Yet it is an entirely separate question as to whether such rights were clearly established.

Greenaway v. Cnty. of Nassau

327 F. Supp. 3d 552 · District Court, E.D. New York · Mar 31, 2018

Under law, a police officer is entitled to qualified immunity if his "conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known." Gonzalez v. … These arguments go to the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis-whether a law was clearly established at the time of the alleged wrongdoing.

Washington v. Amand

308 F. Supp. 3d 497 · District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 9, 2018

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity protects all public officials except the "plainly incompetent [and] those who knowingly violate the law." Malley v. … Second, we inquire whether the violated right was clearly established at the time that the offending conduct occurred.

Grzywna Ex Rel. Doe v. Schenectady Central School District

489 F. Supp. 2d 139 · District Court, N.D. New York · Mar 7, 2006

Qualified Immunity Defendants seek dismissal of the claims against the individual defendants on the ground of qualified immunity. … Public officials are “protected by qualified immunity from civil liability for actions taken in their official capacity if those actions were objectively reasonable in light of clearly established rules then extant.”

Lloyd v. Burt

997 F. Supp. 2d 71 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Feb 7, 2014

Qualified Immunity Finally, Defendants contend that Count I must be dismissed because Burt is immune from the claim under the doctrine of qualified immunity. … “The doctrine of 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

Celec v. Edinboro University

132 F. Supp. 3d 651 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 18, 2015

Dist., 800 F.3d 633 , 637-39 and n. 4 (3d Cir.2015) (discussing general principles of qualified immunity defense). … See Spady, supra, at 639 ("In order for a right to be clearly established there must be applicable precedent from the Supreme Court ...”).