Case law

Kozar v. Munoz

230 F. Supp. 3d 915 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jan 31, 2017

Qualified Immunity Defendants contend that they are entitled to qualified immunity. Doc. 59 at 13-14. “Two central questions must be addressed in the course of determining whether qualified immunity is available.” … But for qualified immunity purposes, the distinction makes no difference; a detainee’s right to be free from deliberate indifference was clearly established under both sets of circumstances.

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.”

Williams v. City of White Plains

718 F. Supp. 2d 374 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jun 16, 2010

immunity. 3 The Court will not discuss the issue *379 of probable cause because it finds that the police officers are entitled to qualified immunity. … Qualified immunity is designed to protect government officials from civil liability when their conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known

Przyborowski v. Howard

863 F. Supp. 22 · District Court, D. Maine · Jul 7, 1994

Detective Howard has moved for summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity for the federal claim and absolute immunity for the state claim. … Przyborowski has therefore failed to show that it was “clearly established” that a warrant in Maine could not be used for such a purpose. 3 Detective Howard did not violate any clearly established constitutional right by

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.”

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.

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.

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.

Martin v. City of Reading

118 F. Supp. 3d 751 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 31, 2015

Qualified immunity protects an official from a suit for money damages unless a plaintiff shows “(1) that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right; and (2) that the right was ‘clearly established’ at the time … For Defendant Errington, there are material issues of fact bearing on his entitlement to qualified immunity.

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.

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

Plaza-Torres v. Rey

376 F. Supp. 2d 171 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Jul 5, 2005

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity constitutes a right not to stand trial or face the burdens of litigation. See Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 , 201, 121 S.Ct. 2151 , 150 L.Ed.2d 272 (2001). … The procedures regarding qualified immunity allow for judicial review, via certiorari, on the qualified immunity issue. Id. at 207, 121 S.Ct. 2151 .

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.

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.

Ruttenberg v. Jones

603 F. Supp. 2d 844 · District Court, E.D. Virginia · Mar 11, 2009

immunity because plaintiffs’ asserted constitutional rights were not clearly established at the time of the search. … immunity because the constitutional rights at issue were not “clearly established” at the time of the Operation.

Haley v. Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property

129 F. Supp. 3d 377 · District Court, E.D. Virginia · Sep 8, 2015

Three, whether the Court should grant Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss because Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity as the constitutional right at issue was not clearly established at the time of the alleged misconduct … Third, Defendants argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity because the constitutional right at issue was not clearly established at the time of the alleged misconduct. 1.

Benson v. Daniels

89 F. Supp. 2d 212 · District Court, D. Connecticut · Mar 21, 2000

Qualified Immunity The defendants next argue that Chief Daniels is entitled to qualified immunity because his conduct did not violate clearly establish statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would … If the government official’s conduct violates “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known,” then he will not be afforded qualified immunity.

HARRISON v. KNIGHT

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Sep 15, 2021

"Qualified immunity is a doctrine that 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 … Pelzer, 536 U.S. 730, 741 (2002) (denying qualified immunity because handcuffing prisoner to hitching post for hours in summer sun violated clearly established law).

Pryor v. City of New York

704 F. Supp. 35 · District Court, E.D. New York · Jan 27, 1989

The Doctrine of Qualified Immunity “[A] government official performing discretionary functions is protected from personal liability to the extent that his 'conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … Qualified immunity can be established in at least three ways.

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."