Case law

Parkell v. Senato

224 F. Supp. 3d 388 · District Court, D. Delaware · Dec 13, 2016

of qualified immunity. … (D.I. 50 at 1) 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

Heichelbech v. Evans

798 F. Supp. 708 · District Court, M.D. Georgia · Sep 2, 1992

Defendants seek summary judgment against a potential damages claim based upon qualified immunity. … In order to overcome defendants’ claim of qualified immunity, plaintiff must show that defendants violated a clearly established right. Zeigler v. Jackson, 716 F.2d 847 (11th Cir.1983).

Ayala Serrano v. Collazo Torres

650 F. Supp. 722 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Dec 29, 1986

LEBRON’S QUALIFIED IMMUNITY DEFENSE Lebrón has also asserted a qualified immunity defense in his purported Motion for Summary Judgment, alleging that plaintiff’s assault was an isolated act of violence, and therefore cannot … We therefore refrain from deciding the question of Lebrón’s qualified immunity at present.

Mortensbak v. Butler

102 F. Supp. 3d 1085 · District Court, D. South Dakota · Feb 24, 2015

However, “[qualified immunity shields a government official from liability in a § 1983 action unless the official’s conduct violates a clearly established constitutional or statutory right of which a reasonable person would … Therefore, the officers’ conduct could not have constituted a violation of clearly established law, and qualified immunity would shield the Defendants from any liability. B.

Clarke v. Cady

358 F. Supp. 1156 · District Court, W.D. Wisconsin · May 11, 1973

Furthermore, 'turning again to the common law of tort immunity, absolute immunity has been afforded to legislators who promulgate unconstitutional laws and qualified immunity has been extended to administrative officers who … Such a defense of qualified immunity, we believe, is available to defendant in this case.

Nickols v. Morris

705 F. Supp. 2d 579 · District Court, N.D. Texas · Apr 8, 2010

Qualified immunity protects government officials performing discretionary functions from personal liability as long as their conduct violates no clearly established constitutional or federal statutory rights. 16 To overcome … decide whether the right was clearly established at the time of the defendant’s conduct. 19 In the *588 recent case Pearson v.

Gonzales v. City Of San Jose

District Court, N.D. California · Jun 15, 2020

Qualified Immunity 25 The “doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials ‘from liability 26 for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly … Because Gonzales has not alleged a constitutional 9 deprivation, the Court need not decide whether the right was clearly established. 10 Nonetheless, the Court discusses this prong of the qualified immunity analysis

Stillwagon v. City of Delaware

274 F. Supp. 3d 714 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Aug 15, 2017

Clearly Established Right Ailes is entitled to qualified immunity if his actions did not violate a clearly established right of which a reasonable official would have known. See Bell, 308 F.3d at 601 . … Clearly Established Right If Flynn’s actions did not violate a clearly established right of which a reasonable official would have known, Flynn is entitled to qualified immunity. See Bell, 308 *771 F.3d at 601 .

King v. Garfield County Public Hospital District No. 1

17 F. Supp. 3d 1060 · District Court, E.D. Washington · May 1, 2014

Qualified Immunity Defense Defendants contend, in the alternative, that Craigie, Morrow, and Beehler are entitled to qualified immunity because their conduct did not violate clearly established constitutional rights. … “Only when an officer’s conduct violates a clearly established constitutional right — when the officer should have known he was violating the Constitution — does he forfeit qualified immunity.” Id.

Pierson Sand & Gravel, Inc. v. Pierson Township

851 F. Supp. 850 · District Court, W.D. Michigan · Mar 30, 1994

A state official is entitled to qualified immunity if his allegedly unlawful conduct was objectively reasonable when considered in light of the legal rules that were clearly established at the time the challenged conduct … Clearly Established Rights.

Baranski v. Fifteen Unknown Agents of ATF

252 F. Supp. 2d 401 · District Court, W.D. Kentucky · Mar 14, 2003

The more important question for qualified immunity purposes is whether Plaintiff can show violation of a clearly established constitutional right in these circumstances. … Defendants are entitled, therefore, to qualified immunity on this claim. III.

Armbruster v. Frost

962 F. Supp. 2d 105 · District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 26, 2013

“Qualified immunity shields federal and state officials from money damages unless a plaintiff pleads facts showing (1) that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was ‘clearly … established’ at the time of the challenged conduct.”

Smith v. Eley

675 F. Supp. 1301 · District Court, D. Utah · Dec 29, 1987

their actions comport with clearly established law. … was “clearly established at the time [the] action occurred.”

Kalka v. Megathlin

10 F. Supp. 2d 1117 · District Court, D. Arizona · May 18, 1998

However, the Court finds that, at a minimum, the law on this issue is not clearly established and Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. … The Court finds that the rights alleged by Plaintiffs were not clearly established at the time that Sheehey and Byron acted and therefore they are entitled to qualified immunity from money damages.

Golla v. City of Bossier City

687 F. Supp. 2d 645 · District Court, W.D. Louisiana · Dec 15, 2009

Qualified Immunity The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials “from liability insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … Second, if a violation has been established, the court must then determine whether the officer’s actions were objectively reasonable in light of clearly established law at the time of the conduct in question.

Delaney v. Shobe

235 F. Supp. 662 · District Court, D. Oregon · Nov 12, 1964

Hatfield is the duly elected and qualified Governor of the State of Oregon and is a member of the Board of Control of that State; and the defendant Clarence. T. … Viewing plaintiff’s complaint in this posture and light, the nonliability of the respective defendants is clearly pointed up and established. a) As for the defendant Clarence T.

Oladipupo v. Austin

104 F. Supp. 2d 643 · District Court, W.D. Louisiana · Apr 24, 2000

Qualified Immunity Belt and Thibodeaux contend that they are protected from liability on the basis of qualified immunity. … of clearly established law.

Smith v. City of New Haven

166 F. Supp. 2d 636 · District Court, D. Connecticut · Aug 20, 2001

Qualified Immunity As to the Police Officers The defense of qualified immunity shields government agents “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 528 , 105 S.Ct. 2806 , 86 L.Ed.2d 411 (officials are immune unless “the law clearly proscribed the actions they took.”)

Hosty v. Governors State University

174 F. Supp. 2d 782 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Apr 30, 2001

Qualified immunity protects public officials from monetary liability when their conduct does not violate clearly established rights. Harlow v. … However, viewed in a light most favorable to plaintiffs, defendants’ conduct constitutes editorial control, and clearly violates established First Amendment law. Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity. III.

Sampson v. Blue Cross Blue Shield

997 F. Supp. 2d 777 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Feb 18, 2014

They contend that Filarsky does not establish that the BCBS Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity and they also direct the Court to another Supreme Court decision, that predates Filarsky , that they believe is more … “In short, the qualified immunity recognized in Harlow [v.