Case law

Stevenson v. District of Columbia

District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 4, 2022

on qualified immunity grounds. … In finding that the officers were not entitled to qualified immunity, the court further emphasized that “the true test for qualified immunity in this case is whether, as [the plaintiff] alleges, the law clearly prohibited

Ellis v. Washington County, Tenn.

80 F. Supp. 2d 791 · District Court, E.D. Tennessee · Jan 27, 1998

Because the court found there was no clearly established right to suicide prevention screening or facilities as of November 1982, it concluded the police officers were entitled to qualified immunity. … The Sixth Circuit has also established a burden shifting paradigm with respect to qualified immunity: The ultimate burden of proof is on the plaintiff to show that the defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity.

Hughes v. City of North Olmsted

894 F. Supp. 1120 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · May 3, 1995

When a defendant raises the issue of qualified immunity in the context of a summary judgment motion, the plaintiff “must allege facts sufficient to indicate that the act in question violated clearly established law.” … Accordingly, because the right is clearly established and a reasonable employer would understand that the investigation violates the right, an employer may not invoke qualified immunity when the employer investigates matters

Wilson v. Taylor

466 F. Supp. 2d 567 · District Court, D. Delaware · Dec 14, 2006

Qualified Immunity Defendants assert that they are protected from civil liability by the doctrine of qualified immunity. … Government officials are entitled to qualified immunity as long as they do not “violate clearly established statutory or Constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v.

Fagnan v. City of Lino Lakes

914 F. Supp. 2d 1019 · District Court, D. Minnesota · Nov 26, 2012

“Qualified immunity protects government officials performing discretionary functions ... from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of … The qualified immunity analysis has two components: whether the government official violated the plaintiffs rights and whether the right was clearly established. Pearson v.

Arnsberg v. United States

549 F. Supp. 55 · District Court, D. Oregon · Aug 11, 1982

Moreover, defendants in a Bivens action have a qualified immunity defense available, based upon their good faith belief in the legality of their actions. Dellums v. Powell, 566 F.2d 167 (D.C.Cir.1977); Butz v. … The special circumstances which warrant creation of the qualified personal immunity for agents acting in good faith do not apply to the government under the Federal Torts Claims Act.

Thornburg v. Dora

677 F. Supp. 581 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Jan 21, 1988

Qualified immunity applies only to the extent relief is sought against an official in his individual capacity. … Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, government officials are shielded from civil liability unless their conduct violated “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have

Professional Helicopter Pilots Ass'n v. Carlucci

731 F. Supp. 440 · District Court, M.D. Alabama · Mar 2, 1990

Therefore, when an official is acting pursuant to his or her authority, immunity applies. The standard for qualified immunity was established in Harlow v. Fitzgerald. … the plaintiffs allegations state a claim of violation of clearly established law, a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal before the commencement of discovery. 472 U.S. at 524, 526 , 105 S.Ct. at

Babi-Ali v. City of New York

979 F. Supp. 268 · District Court, S.D. New York · Oct 21, 1997

Sabbagh is protected from liability by qualified immunity. (Def. Mem.Law at 17). … Government officials may enjoy a privilege of qualified immunity from liability for damages arising out of their discretionary official functions so long as their conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or

Chan v. City of Chicago

777 F. Supp. 1437 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Dec 9, 1991

The defendants contend that they are entitled to qualified immunity because it was not clearly established at the time of Chan’s transfer that it was unconstitutional. … Public officials who perform discretionary functions are entitled to qualified immunity from civil liability to the extent their conduct does not violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a

Cornett v. Longois

871 F. Supp. 918 · District Court, E.D. Texas · Dec 8, 1994

The doctrine of qualified immunity affords protection against individual liability for civil damages to officials “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … Qualified immunity protects a police officer from liability if a reasonable competent law enforcement officer would not have known that his actions violated clearly established law. Anderson v.

Day v. Delong

358 F. Supp. 3d 687 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Jan 9, 2019

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity attaches when an official's conduct " 'does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.' " White v. … Here, even if Plaintiff had sufficiently pled a federal constitutional violation, Defendants DeLong and Wagner are entitled to qualified immunity because they are not alleged to have violated clearly established constitutional

Eisnnicher v. Bob Evans Farms Restaurants

310 F. Supp. 2d 936 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Mar 31, 2004

Qualified Immunity According to the doctrine of qualified immunity, “government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate … “Thus, when a defendant moves for summary judgment based on qualified immunity, the plaintiff must: 1) identify a clearly established right alleged to have been violated; and 2) establish that a reasonable officer in the

Doe v. Round Valley Unified School District

873 F. Supp. 2d 1124 · District Court, D. Arizona · Jun 7, 2012

Qualified Immunity Even if Plaintiffs had adequately pleaded causation against John Allen, he is immune from suit under the doctrine of qualified immunity. … Qualified immunity protects government officials from civil rights lawsuits unless (1) the official violated a constitutional right, and (2) the constitutional right was clearly established at the time of the violation.

Abdel-Whab v. ORTHOPEDIC ASS'N OF DUTCHESS

415 F. Supp. 2d 293 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jan 18, 2006

of qualified immunity provides “that government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established ... constitutional … Assuming plaintiff had successfully alleged a violation of a clearly established constitutional right in his amended complaint, Agent Capstraw would still be entitled to qualified immunity because his actions were “objectively

Clemens v. Mount Clemens Cmty. Sch. Dist.

305 F. Supp. 3d 759 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Mar 30, 2018

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity is an affirmative defense against a Section 1983 claim. Noble v. Schmitt , 87 F.3d 157 , 160 (6th Cir. 1996). … "[T]he test for qualified immunity has only two prongs-whether the defendant violated a constitutional right and whether the right at issue was clearly established." Brown v.

Adoption Services of Connecticut, Inc. v. Ragaglia

178 F. Supp. 2d 139 · District Court, D. Connecticut · Dec 17, 2001

A plaintiff may overcome the defendant’s qualified immunity “by showing that [the plaintiffs asserted] rights were clearly established at the time of the conduct at issue,” Davis v. … immunity defense, and the defendant is entitled to the defense of qualified immunity as a matter of law. 2. • Objectively Reasonable Action Even assuming defendant Schultz violated a clearly established federal right of

Lopkoff v. Slater

898 F. Supp. 767 · District Court, D. Colorado · Sep 26, 1995

Qualified immunity claims are governed by the “clearly established law” standard enunciated in Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 , 102 S.Ct. 2727 , 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982). … The plaintiff in a qualified immunity case has a heavier burden than is normally imposed to avoid summary judgment, since the plaintiff has the burden of proving that defendants’ conduct violated a clearly established law

Dorman v. Simpson

893 F. Supp. 1073 · District Court, N.D. Georgia · Jun 8, 1995

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY Even if Defendants are not entitled to absolute immunity from Plaintiffs claims, all Defendants are protected by qualified immunity. Harlow v. … Qualified immunity protects “government officials performing discretionary functions from civil trials (and other burdens of litigation and discovery) and from liability if their conduct violates no ‘clearly established statutory

Hinkfuss v. Shawano County

772 F. Supp. 1104 · District Court, E.D. Wisconsin · Aug 9, 1991

Once the issue of qualified immunity is properly injected in a case by a motion for summary judgment, the plaintiff bears the burden of showing that a “clearly established” constitutional right exists. See, Mitchell v. … Forsyth, 472 U.S., at 528 , 105 S.Ct., at 2816 (holding that once a defendant advances a defense of qualified immunity, summary judgment may be granted unless “the legal norms allegedly violated by the defendant were clearly