Case 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.”

Kathriner v. City of Overland, Mo.

602 F. Supp. 124 · District Court, E.D. Missouri · Sep 4, 1984

Qualified or good faith immunity generally shields public officials from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … The law, however, was not clearly established at the time of plaintiff's strip search.

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.

Candelario v. Gonzalez Chapel

681 F. Supp. 107 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Jan 20, 1988

. *108 The Court has before it defendants’ motion for partial summary judgment as to any damages claim on the basis of qualified immunity. … clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”

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.”).