Case law

Gyadu v. Workers' Compensation Commission

930 F. Supp. 738 · District Court, D. Connecticut · Jun 24, 1996

The Commissioner’s Absolute and Qualified Immunity Defendants assert in their motion to dismiss that the Commissioner, sued in his individual capacity, is entitled to absolute judicial immunity and qualified immunity as to … job, but enjoy only qualified immunity as to others.

Rex v. City of Milwaukee

321 F. Supp. 2d 1008 · District Court, E.D. Wisconsin · Jun 10, 2004

Qualified Immunity The officers argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity. … The burden of establishing the existence of a clearly established constitutional right is on the plaintiff, and it is a heavy one because qualified immunity is designed to shield from civil liability “all but the plainly

Gudger v. District of Columbia

181 F. Supp. 3d 30 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 5, 2016

[because] it is impossible for the court to determine, as a matter of law, what predicate facts exist to decide whether or not the officer’s conduct clearly violated established law”)). … Marable’s last known address, which seems to directly cut against Sergeant Millsaps’s qualified immunity defense. See id.

Gusler v. City of Long Beach

823 F. Supp. 2d 98 · District Court, E.D. New York · Oct 3, 2011

Qualified Immunity Defendants argue that all of the individual Defendants are protected by the doctrine of qualified immunity. DE 22-2 at 22. … For a right to be “clearly established” for purposes of qualified immunity, “it is sufficient if decisions of the Supreme Court or of the appropriate circuit have defined the contours of the right with reasonable specificity

Hayes v. Erie County Office of Children and Youth

497 F. Supp. 2d 684 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 29, 2007

Qualified immunity shields state officials from suit when their conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. … If the right was not clearly established, however, then the official is entitled to qualified immunity, and the plaintiffs claim must be dismissed.

Bethany Medical Center v. Harder

693 F. Supp. 968 · District Court, D. Kansas · Jul 1, 1988

The doctrine of qualified immunity 8 provides that “government officials performing discretionary functions ... are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … Harder has properly raised the qualified immunity defense, Bethany has the burden to prove that Harder’s actions violated some clearly established standard.

Donnelly v. Peters

199 F. Supp. 2d 1372 · District Court, M.D. Georgia · Mar 7, 2002

He must allege sufficient facts to overcome Ford’s qualified immunity. … Under these facts, it cannot be said that his conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right of which a reasonable person would have known. Therefore, he is entitled to qualified immunity.

Dodge v. Trustees of the National Gallery of Art

326 F. Supp. 2d 1 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 29, 2004

qualified immunity is lost. … If the federal official was not on notice that his conduct would clearly be unlawful, summary judgment based on qualified immunity is appropriate. Saucier, 533 U.S. at 202, 121 S.Ct. 2151 (citing Malley v.

Deforte v. Borough of Worthington

364 F. Supp. 3d 458 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 4, 2019

Qualified Immunity The affirmative defense of qualified immunity "shield[s] officials from harassment, distraction, and liability when they perform their duties reasonably." Pearson v. … As explained below, Defendants are entitled to Qualified Immunity and to summary judgment on the merits, because even though Plaintiff's right not to be charged based on fabricated evidence was clearly established as of 2012

Arbuckle v. City of Chattanooga

696 F. Supp. 2d 907 · District Court, E.D. Tennessee · Mar 8, 2010

In addition, “[qualified immunity affords government officials an immunity from suit ‘insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have … circumstances was clearly established in March of 2006.

Allen v. Ohio Department of Rehabilitation & Correction

128 F. Supp. 2d 483 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Jan 19, 2001

Qualified Immunity Defendants next argue that Ms. Akram, in her individual capacity, is entitled to qualified immunity. Government officials sued in their individual capacities are entitled to seek qualified immunity. … Qualified immunity extends to individuals performing discretionary functions unless their actions violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Id.

Meyer v. Teslik

411 F. Supp. 2d 983 · District Court, W.D. Wisconsin · Jan 26, 2006

Qualified Immunity The doctrine of qualified immunity “gives public officials the benefit of legal doubts” by insuring that “officers are on notice their conduct is unlawful” before they are subject to suit. Saucier v. … Defendant contends that he is entitled to qualified immunity if plaintiffs rights under RLUIPA or the First Amendment were violated by his actions.

Bernofsky v. Road Home Corp.

741 F. Supp. 2d 773 · District Court, W.D. Louisiana · Sep 30, 2010

The parties do not dispute that the agencies qualify as the “state” for purposes of Eleventh Amendment immunity. … Absent a statute that clearly and expressly abrogates the state’s immunity, the court will not presume such intent. See Atascadero, 473 U.S. 234 at 240 , 105 S.Ct. at 3146 .

Green v. Poorman

District Court, D. Delaware · Feb 17, 2022

(D.I. 51 at 3-9) Qualified immunity insulates government officials from civil liability when performing discretionary functions “insofar as their conduct does not violate ‘clearly established’ statutory or constitutional … In assessing qualified immunity, a court must consider “(1) whether the officer violated a constitutional right, and (2) whether the right was clearly established, such that it would [have been] clear to a reasonable officer

Brady v. Tamburini

District Court, D. Rhode Island · Feb 9, 2021

Chief Tamburini’s Qualified Immunity Chief Tamburini asserts that he should be afforded qualified immunity from liability in his personal capacity and moves for summary judgment on that … “But qualified immunity requires that the general right be placed in a reasonably specific context.”

Anderson v. Central Point School District No. 6

554 F. Supp. 600 · District Court, D. Oregon · Nov 16, 1982

Plaintiff does agree that Groshong is entitled to a qualified good faith immunity if he can prove objective good faith. 2 Objective good faith requires proof that Groshong’s conduct did not “violate clearly established statutory … All others are only entitled to a qualified good faith immunity. Id.

El-Uri v. City of Chicago

186 F. Supp. 2d 844 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Feb 11, 2002

The two detectives invoke qualified immunity as a defense. … The individual officers have no qualified immunity defense here. C.

Dyer v. Maryland State Board of Education

187 F. Supp. 3d 599 · District Court, D. Maryland · May 20, 2016

Plaintiffs federal claims as against them pursuant to the doctrine of qualified immunity. … removal of a local official for misconduct in office, via a statutory mechanism with extensive procedural protections, nevertheless violates some clearly established federal right.

McDaniel v. Fulton County School District

233 F. Supp. 2d 1364 · District Court, N.D. Georgia · Sep 13, 2002

“For the law to be clearly established to the point that qualified immunity does not apply, the law must have earlier been developed in such a concrete and factually defined context to make it obvious to all reasonable government … When a government official asserts the defense of qualified immunity, the burden falls on the plaintiff to show that the official violated clearly established law. Hartsfield v.

Frisenda v. INCORPORATED VILLAGE OF MALVERNE

775 F. Supp. 2d 486 · District Court, E.D. New York · Mar 31, 2011

Tollaksen, 257 Fed.Appx. 400, 401 (2d Cir.2007) (explaining that government officers “are protected by qualified immunity if their actions do not violate clearly established law, or it was objectively reasonable for them … judgment, summary judgment on qualified immunity is inappropriate.