Case law

Lutz v. United States Postal Service

538 F. Supp. 1129 · District Court, E.D. New York · May 14, 1982

Nevertheless, the conclusion that a jurisdiction conferring statute provides a basis to hear a claim clearly does not end judicial inquiry and permit the litigation to continue unchecked. … and “provide .. . career opportunities that will assure the attraction and retention of qualified and capable supervisory and other managerial personnel.”

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.

Biscayne Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n v. Pratt

646 F. Supp. 371 · District Court, District of Columbia · Oct 8, 1986

Plaintiffs may overcome defendants’ qualified immunity only by showing that plaintiffs’ constitutional rights were clearly established at the time of the conduct in question. Mitchell, 105 S.Ct. at 2820 ; Davis v. … clearly established constitutional rights.

Laise v. City of Utica

970 F. Supp. 605 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Jul 14, 1997

” of the officer’s actions, assessed in light of the legal rales that were “clearly established” at the time the action was taken. … established law.

Davis v. Town of New Durham, NH

2013 DNH 119 · District Court, D. New Hampshire · Sep 10, 2013

if s o , whether the right was clearly established at the time of the defendant’s alleged violation.’” … Chief Bernier, in his individual capacity, is entitled to qualified immunity.

Green v. United States Ex Rel. Department of Agriculture

8 F. Supp. 2d 983 · District Court, W.D. Michigan · Feb 27, 1998

Qualified immunity allows public officials to perform their duties without threat of liability when the law in a particular situation is not clearly established. … any clearly established right.

Savino v. Town of Southeast

983 F. Supp. 2d 293 · District Court, S.D. New York · Oct 21, 2013

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY Defendants contend that Tessmer is entitled to qualified immunity. … A defendant enjoys qualified immunity if he can show that “either (a) [his] action did not violate clearly established law, or (b) it was objectively reasonable for [him] to believe that his action did not violate such law

Shannon Fredericksburg Motor Inn, Inc. v. Hicks

434 F. Supp. 803 · District Court, E.D. Virginia · May 17, 1977

Although the immunity of some non-legislative government officials has been qualified by the Supreme Court, see, e. g., Scheuer v. … If only qualified immunity applied, such local legislative activity might well elicit the very kind of intimidation and harassment which the Supreme Court has concluded warrants a rule of absolute immunity.

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.

Shankle v. Texas City

885 F. Supp. 996 · District Court, S.D. Texas · May 4, 1995

Even if the Plaintiffs stated a cognizable claim which could establish that either or both the Mayor and Chief of police somehow violated a Constitutionally protected right, these Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity … This objective-reasonableness test affords qualified immunity protection to “all but the plainly incompetent or those who knowingly violate the law.” Malley v.

Miller v. Monroe School District

159 F. Supp. 3d 1238 · District Court, W.D. Washington · Feb 3, 2016

Defendants assert that they are entitled to qualified immunity against all three § 1983 claims, because the aversive interventions did not violate any clearly *1248 established right. (Dkt. No. 73 at 22-23.) … Once a defendant raises the defense of qualified immunity, the plaintiff bears the burden of proving the existence of a clearly established right at the time of the allegedly impermissible conduct. LSO, Ltd. v.

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

Kilpatrick v. United States

578 F. Supp. 2d 1339 · District Court, N.D. Florida · Sep 26, 2008

Qualified Immunity As an initial matter, Defendant Roegner asserts that he is entitled to qualified immunity. … To defeat qualified immunity, it must be shown that 1) the plaintiffs constitutional rights were violated and 2) that those rights were clearly established at the time of the alleged violation. Holloman ex rel.

Roes v. FLORIDA DEPT OF CHILDREN & FAMILY SERVICES

176 F. Supp. 2d 1310 · District Court, S.D. Florida · Sep 24, 2001

of qualified immunity. … Simply put, "If the law did not put the officer on notice that his conduct would be clearly unlawful, summary judgment based on qualified immunity is appropriate."

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.

Crowder v. True

845 F. Supp. 1250 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Feb 17, 1994

Public officials are immune from liability unless they violate the “clearly established” constitutional rights of the plaintiff. See, e.g., Knox v. McGinnis, 998 F.2d 1405, 1409 (7th Cir.1993) (quoting Harlow v. … Crowder’s constitutional, rather than administrative, right to a hearing to review his segregation status was “clearly established.”

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.

A.G. ex rel. Sassak v. City of Park Ridge

198 F. Supp. 3d 856 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jul 27, 2016

conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … a clearly established constitutional right by showing that the violation was so obvious that a reasonable person would have known of the unconstitutionality of the conduct at issue.”).