Case law

Zimmerman v. Simmons

260 F. Supp. 2d 1077 · District Court, D. Kansas · Apr 28, 2003

Qualified immunity shields an individual government official performing discretionary functions from liability for civil damages insofar as his conduct does not violate clearly established statutoiy or constitutional rights … to qualified immunity.”

Stamps-Bey v. Thomas

618 F. Supp. 1122 · District Court, S.D. New York · Sep 20, 1985

Fitzgerald, supra, the Court reformulated the doctrine of qualified immunity by establishing an objective standard against which to measure the actions of a federal official accused of constitutional torts. … Under the holding of Harlow , a government official’s immunity from liability depends on the objective reasonableness of his conduct as measured by reference to clearly established law.

Call v. Badgley

254 F. Supp. 3d 1051 · District Court, N.D. California · May 19, 2017

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity is an entitlement, provided to government officials in the exercise of their duties, not to stand trial or face the other burdens of litigation. Saucier v. … To determine whether an officer is entitled to qualified immunity, the Court must consider whether (1) the officer’s conduct violated a constitutional right and (2) that right was clearly established at the time of the incident

Gwin v. Curry

161 F.R.D. 70 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · May 12, 1995

AD 1 seeks to assert qualified immunity for Curry because “a reasonable police officer in the position of the Defendant reasonably could have believed that his conduct was within the constitutional limits that were clearly … established at the time.”

Berglund v. City of Maplewood, MN

173 F. Supp. 2d 935 · District Court, D. Minnesota · Oct 25, 2001

Qualified Immunity Because the court finds no instance in which the defendants violated plaintiffs’ statutory or constitutional rights, the court need not consider the defendants’ affirmative defense of qualified immunity … must determine whether the constitutional right in question is “clearly established;” (3) the court must then decide if the plaintiff has shown that the defendant violated the clearly established right; (4) finally, if the

Pathways Psychosocial v. Town of Leonardtown, MD

223 F. Supp. 2d 699 · District Court, D. Maryland · Aug 9, 2002

Qualified immunity Defendants contend that Muchow should be qualifiedly immune because the court was wrong in stating, on summary judgment, that the “law was clearly estab *714 lished since 1985 that public officials cannot … Defendants are “entitled to summary judgment on the ground of qualified immunity if they can establish that reasonable officials could have believed that their actions were lawful in light of both clearly established law

Santiago v. Feeney

379 F. Supp. 2d 150 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jul 26, 2005

immunity because “their conduct was objectively reasonable in light of clearly established law.” 40 For the relevant aspects of this case, Massachusetts law is more clearly established than its federal counterpart. … In addition, § 1983 and the MCRA employ the same qualified immunity standard. 41 This court, therefore, will begin its analysis by determining whether Eddings and Feeney are entitled to qualified immunity with respect to

Young ex rel. J.Y. v. United States

152 F. Supp. 3d 337 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Dec 2, 2015

qualifies for a cap on damages under the NJCIA. … Applying these standards, the Court concludes that the Government does not qualify for absolute immunity under the NJCIA, but may qualify for the damages cap.

Bolger v. District of Columbia

District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 31, 2009

If, however, there is a constitutional violation, the second step in the analysis is to determine "whether the right was clearly established." Id. … Circuit cases discussed here establish that such a rule could not be considered "clearly established" in this Circuit at that time.

Wehran-Puerto Rico, Inc. v. Municipality of Arecibo

106 F. Supp. 2d 276 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Jul 6, 2000

Qualified immunity Defendants argue that Román is entitled- to qualified immunity. … The qualified immunity doctrine protects state officials from civil liability under section 1983 so long as their conduct does not violate a clearly established constitutional right of which a reasonable official would have

Porter v. City of Phila.

337 F. Supp. 3d 530 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 31, 2018

of persuasive authority' in the Court of Appeals could clearly establish a right for purposes of qualified immunity." … As in Monteiro , Porter's First Amendment rights were clearly established. Accordingly, Chew is not entitled to qualified immunity. 2.

Brotherton v. Cleveland

908 F. Supp. 502 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Nov 27, 1995

Applying the rationale behind these decisions, we find that like qualified immunity, Eleventh Amendment immunity should not be extended to private parties. … The Supreme Court reasoned that qualified immunity was established to allow public officials “to serve the public good or to ensure that talented candidates were not deterred by the threat of damages suits from entering public

Doe Hm v. City of Creve Coeur, Mo.

666 F. Supp. 2d 988 · District Court, E.D. Missouri · Sep 30, 2009

Qualified immunity shields "government officials performing discretionary functions ... from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of … right was violated; and (2) that the constitutional right was "clearly established" when the deprivation took place.

Hernandez v. Montanez

36 F. Supp. 3d 202 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · May 2, 2014

The doctrine of qualified immunity protects public. employees “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … qualified immunity.”

Signorile by and Through Signorile v. City of NY

887 F. Supp. 403 · District Court, E.D. New York · Apr 6, 1995

Qualified Immunity A. … Qualified immunity shields police officers from personal liability for damages “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known

Adams v. Montgomery College

834 F. Supp. 2d 386 · District Court, D. Maryland · Jun 30, 2011

of sovereign immunity. … Defendants intentionally violate the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act by demonstrating deliberate indifference when they “[have] notice of the potential risk of their decision, and clearly [refuse] the accommodation knowingly

Doe v. Smith

704 F. Supp. 1177 · District Court, S.D. New York · Oct 3, 1988

The qualified immunity evaporates only if the challenged actions are deemed to be clearly violative of the complainant’s rights. Walsh v. Franco, 849 F.2d 66 (2d Cir.1988). … Detective Smith is accorded qualified immunity from liability for discretionary functions *1187 insofar as his conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights when he knew or reasonably should

McBride v. Cahoone

820 F. Supp. 2d 623 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 17, 2011

Qualified Immunity With Respect To Probation Officer Don Cahoone Under the qualified immunity principle, “government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar … We analyze two issues when evaluating a qualified immunity question: (1) whether the facts that a plaintiff has alleged or shown make out a violation of a constitutional right, and (2) whether the right at issue was “clearly

Lott v. Andrews Center

259 F. Supp. 2d 564 · District Court, E.D. Texas · May 2, 2003

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY DeSanto has asserted the defense of qualified immunity. … DeSanto is a public official and has invoked the defense of qualified immunity. As such, the “heightened pleading” standard of particularity is required under the doctrine of qualified immunity.

Kelley v. City of Michigan City

300 F. Supp. 2d 682 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Jan 12, 2004

Warsanen Defendant Warsanen argues that he is entitled to qualified immunity from liability under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 . … Qualified immunity is an affirmative defense for government officials in Section 1983 suits which allege constitutional violations.