Case law

Jackson v. City of Columbus

67 F. Supp. 2d 839 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Jul 28, 1998

The focus of the qualified immunity analysis is on the objective reasonableness of the official’s conduct as measured by reference to clearly established law and the information which the official possessed. … In addition, since plaintiff has failed to make out a violation of a clearly established constitutional right, the individual defendants are entitled to qualified immunity on plaintiffs claims under §§ 1981, 1983 and 1985

Flinn v. Block

620 F. Supp. 891 · District Court, E.D. Missouri · Sep 4, 1985

Defendants allege that they are immune from damage claims because their conduct did not violate "clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known." See Harlow v. … Because the law was not clearly established at that time, the Court will grant defendants' motions for summary judgment based upon defendants' qualified immunity. See Schieffer v. Block, 601 F.Supp. 90 (E.D.Mo.1984).

Michel v. Beutler

888 F. Supp. 2d 861 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Jul 3, 2012

That being so, I find the defendants’ claim of qualified immunity to be without merit. The Sixth Circuit enunciated the elements of qualified immunity in Cherrington v. … Despite the defendants’ contentions about qualified immunity, the law is and has long been clearly established with regard to the constitutional violations which a jury could find the defendants perpetrated, namely: • Presenting

Whitt v. City of Rockford

700 F. Supp. 391 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Oct 21, 1988

If their conduct did not ‘violate clearly established ... constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known,’ they are entitled to qualified immunity.” Bradshaw v. Zebella, 1987 U.S. Dist. … But the law is not clearly established for purposes of qualified immunity unless it has spoken to cases involving facts clearly analogous to those facing the defendant at the time he took his challenged action.

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).

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

Reynolds v. Glynn County Board of Education

968 F. Supp. 696 · District Court, S.D. Georgia · Aug 30, 1996

Qualified Immunity Although Reynolds satisfies the heightened pleading requirement with respect to remaining Defendants, Dempsey, Kirby, and McDowell, he still must clear the qualified immunity hurdle. *706 The United States … “If the law was clearly established, the immunity defense ordinarily should fail, since a reasonably competent public official should know the law governing his conduct.”

Maynard v. Greater Hoyt School District No. 61-4

876 F. Supp. 1104 · District Court, D. South Dakota · Feb 21, 1995

The individual school board members are entitled to qualified immunity unless they violated a clearly established right of the plaintiffs. Harlow v. … The school board members are entitled to qualified immunity in their personal capacities.

Trafton v. Devlin

43 F. Supp. 2d 56 · District Court, D. Maine · Mar 4, 1999

prosecutors violated Plaintiffs’ “clearly established constitutional rights.” … United States, 99 F.3d 1200, 1215 (1st Cir.1996) (“a court may ... bypass the qualified immunity analysis if it would be futile because current law forecloses the claim on the merits”).

Silva v. City of San Leandro

744 F. Supp. 2d 1036 · District Court, N.D. California · Sep 29, 2010

a clearly established right. … In any event, Defendants assert, Officers Fletcher and Khan are entitled to qualified immunity on these claims because they did not violate a clearly established right. The Court rejects both contentions.

HOOTSTEIN v. Collins

679 F. Supp. 2d 169 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jan 14, 2010

clearly established at the time of defendants’ actions. … to qualified immunity. 5 .

Yoder v. Ryan

318 F. Supp. 2d 601 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Apr 30, 2004

Qualified immunity is an affirmative defense which protects public officials from civil liability where their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would … These are clearly established rights any reasonable person would be aware of. Mr. Frederking has not established that he is entitled to the protection of qualified immunity at this stage of the proceedings.

Spiegel v. Cortese

966 F. Supp. 684 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jun 3, 1997

Qualified Immunity The availability of qualified immunity is generally a legal question for the court to decide “at the earliest possible stage in litigation.” Forman v. … Despite this clearly established law, Córtese and Kajari would still be entitled to qualified immunity if a reasonable police officer could have mistakenly believed that there was probable cause to arrest Spiegel.

Distiso Ex Rel. Distiso v. Town of Wolcott

539 F. Supp. 2d 562 · District Court, D. Connecticut · Mar 2, 2008

“[Qualified immunity ... shields a government official acting in an official capacity from suit for damages under § 1983 unless the official violated clearly established rights of which an objectively reasonable official … That right is clearly established, and a reasonable person would have known that there is a prohibition against school officials’ knowing failure to remedy racial discrimination.

Estate of Cooper by and Through Cooper v. Leamer

705 F. Supp. 1081 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 10, 1989

Merits of the Civil Rights Claims/Qualified Immunity: Count IV The defendants claim they are entitled to summary judgment on the plaintiffs' civil rights claims on the merits and because of qualified immunity. … The question in determining the existence of qualified immunity is whether a reasonable person could have believed the defendant’s action to be lawful in light of clearly established law and the information he possessed.

George v. City of Wichita

348 F. Supp. 2d 1232 · District Court, D. Kansas · Nov 29, 2004

In order for a right to be “clearly established” for purposes of assessing entitlement to qualified immunity: “The contours of the right must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he … If the plaintiff fails to establish either prong, the court must grant the defendant qualified immunity).

Duncan v. Mississippi Board of Nursing

982 F. Supp. 425 · District Court, S.D. Mississippi · Feb 7, 1997

Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 , 102 S.Ct. 2727 , 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982) (qualified immunity extends to governmental officials performing discretionary functions insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … Under the functional approach, it is the proponent of a claim to absolute immunity who bears the burden of establishing the justification for such immunity. See Antoine v.

Jones v. WESTCHESTER CTY. DEPT., CORR. MED. DEPT.

557 F. Supp. 2d 408 · District Court, S.D. New York · May 6, 2008

Qualified immunity Likewise, Defendants completely misplace their argument for qualified immunity. … ("Qualified Immunity: Special Rules"). "Failure to proceed in accordance with these rules constitutes a waiver of the right to move for judgment on the ground of qualified immunity prior to trial." Id.

Naugle v. Witney

755 F. Supp. 1504 · District Court, D. Utah · Dec 31, 1990

(b) Qualified Immunity The qualified immunity of defendants Madsen, Allan, Witney and Quarn-berg depends on whether they violated clearly established constitutional or statutory rights of which a reasonable person would have … “The test of what law is clearly established ‘should be determined in a particularized sense’ ...

Simon v. Bickell

737 F. Supp. 2d 10 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 14, 2010

Even if Atkins, Bickell, and Kelly were not entitled to absolute immunity, they would be entitled to qualified immunity. … "A plaintiff who seeks damages for violation of constitutional or statutory rights may overcome the defendant official’s qualified immunity only by showing that those rights were clearly established at the time of the conduct