Case law

Aniniba v. City of Aurora

994 F. Supp. 1293 · District Court, D. Colorado · Feb 26, 1998

Qualified immunity shields a police officer performing discretionary functions when the officer’s conduct does not violate clearly established constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. … There are two elements in the analysis of a qualified immunity defense: (1) whether the plaintiff has asserted the violation of a constitutional right, and (2) whether that right was clearly established at the time of the

Ganek v. Leibowitz

167 F. Supp. 3d 623 · District Court, S.D. New York · Mar 10, 2016

Even accepting that allegation as true, Defendants argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity because it was not “clearly established” that tipping the news media would violate Ganek’s constitutional rights. … Defendants challenge Ganek’s proposed remedy, arguing that there is no “clearly established constitutional right” to public exoneration and therefore Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity.

Heenan v. Rhodes

757 F. Supp. 2d 1229 · District Court, M.D. Alabama · Dec 27, 2010

The qualified-immunity defense protects officials from damages in their individual capacities “ ‘insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … As Heenan has failed to establish her First Amendment retaliation claim, that claim fails on the merits. And, because the claim fails on the merits, the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity.

Clark v. Town of Kersey

973 F. Supp. 1217 · District Court, D. Colorado · Aug 8, 1997

Qualified Immunity of Individual Defendants The Trustees have asserted the defense of qualified immunity. … He concludes: “Defendants violated clearly established rules and procedures they had adopted and Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity.” Response at 13. That argument is misguided.

Hodge v. Carroll County Department of Social Services

812 F. Supp. 593 · District Court, D. Maryland · Sep 21, 1992

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity acknowledges that subjecting public officials with discretionary functions to insubstantial lawsuits burdens not only the defendant officials, but society as a whole. Harlow v. … Accordingly, public officials enjoy qualified immunity from liability under § 1983 unless their actions violated “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”

Wysocki v. Crump

838 F. Supp. 2d 763 · District Court, C.D. Illinois · Dec 20, 2011

Finally, Defendant asserts that she is entitled to qualified immunity because it is not clearly established that suspending T.W. after hearing Plaintiffs complaint would violate a clearly established constitutional right. … Because Plaintiff cannot show that Defendant violated a clearly established constitutional right, Defendant is entitled to qualified immunity.

Hill v. Government of the Commonwealth

1 N. Mar. I. Commw. 905 · District Court, Northern Mariana Islands · Feb 21, 1984

were only entitled to a qualified immunity. … If the law was clearly established, the immunity defense should fail since a reasonably competent public official should know the law governing his conduct.

Nelson v. City of Elmhurst

691 F. Supp. 122 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jun 30, 1988

To overcome a defense of qualified immunity, the plaintiff must show that the defendant violated clearly established rights of which a reasonable person would have known. Harlow v. … Nelson has the burden of establishing that Officer Kazarian violated a constitutional right that was clearly established on May 8, 1987. Rakovich v. Wade, 850 F.2d 1180, 1209 (7th Cir.1988).

Gilbert v. City of Minneapolis

District Court, D. Minnesota · Jul 26, 2024

Bryant, 502 U.S. 224, 226 (1991) (analyzing agent’s motion for summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds); see also Lampkins v. … The Court declines to address qualified immunity at this time. in their favor. Id. at 255.

Olender v. Township of Bensalem

32 F. Supp. 2d 775 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 5, 1999

The policy behind qualified immunity is to weed out those claims that clearly lack merit as early as possible in the litigation process. See Harlow, 457 U.S. at 814 , 102 S.Ct. 2727 . … The right to be free from arrest without probable cause is a “clearly established right” under the Fourth Amendment which, if violated, would ordinarily survive a defense of qualified immunity. See Orsatti v.

Keystone Redevelopment Partners, LLC. v. Decker

674 F. Supp. 2d 629 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 16, 2009

If the court concludes that the defendant’s conduct did violate a clearly established constitutional or statutory right, 37 then it must deny the defendant the protection afforded by qualified immunity. Williams v. … As stated above, "if the court concludes that the defendant's conduct did violate a clearly established constitutional or statutory right, then it must deny the defendant the protection afforded by qualified immunity.”

Dickerson v. Monroe County Sheriff's Department

114 F. Supp. 2d 187 · District Court, W.D. New York · Sep 26, 2000

“Qualified immunity shields government officials from liability in their individual capacity if ‘their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have … The court rejected defendant’s defense of qualified immunity, and held that if the plaintiffs “malicious abuse of process allegations are true, then, the [defendants] violated his clearly established due process rights.”

Hoffman v. DeWitt County

176 F. Supp. 3d 795 · District Court, C.D. Illinois · Mar 31, 2016

; (3) Markwell does not have qualified immunity in his individual capacity because clearly established in the law prohibits Markman’s alleged retaliation against Hoffman; (4) Markwell does not have immunity under the Noerr-Pennington … Markwell is not protected by qualified immunity because his alleged actions violate clearly established law.

Conn v. Deskins

238 F. Supp. 3d 924 · District Court, E.D. Kentucky · Mar 1, 2017

Federal Qualified Immunity. … Of course, the defendants respond that the law is not clearly established that a probationary employee must be afforded such process.

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.

Esposito v. Quatinez

2 F. Supp. 3d 406 · District Court, E.D. New York · Mar 5, 2014

“Government actors have qualified immunity to § 1983 claims ‘insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’ ” Bolmer v. … Thus, “[a] qualified immunity defense is established if (a) the defendant’s action did not violate clearly established law, or (b) it was objectively reasonable for the defendant to believe that his action did not violate

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.”

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.

Bishop v. Glazier

868 F. Supp. 2d 829 · District Court, D. Minnesota · Jun 15, 2012

Qualified immunity Having determined what facts to consider in its analysis, the Court proceeds to address Count I, the excessive-force claim, for which Glazier argues that he is entitled to qualified immunity. … Qualified immunity protects state actors unless they have “violate[d] clearly established ... constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Mitchell, 472 U.S. at 524 , 105 S.Ct. 2806 .

Kosegarten v. Department of Prosecuting Attorney

892 F. Supp. 2d 1245 · District Court, D. Hawaii · Aug 31, 2012

The majority of the arguments in the Immunity Opposition address discovery related to the qualified immunity issue. … Entitlement to Qualified Immunity Defendants also argue that this Court should conclude, as a matter of law, that Defendants Acob and Tate are entitled to qualified immunity. 1.