Case law

Conrad v. City of Berea

243 F. Supp. 3d 896 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Mar 20, 2017

whether qualified immunity applies, the court looks to whether the plaintiff (1) presents facts that make out a violation of “a clearly established constitutional right,” and if so, (2) “whether the right at issue was ‘clearly … But, had Plaintiffs succeeded, individual defendants would have otherwise been entitled to qualified immunity because Plaintiffs failed to show that Defendants violated any clearly established right. IV.

Rabin v. Cook County

837 F. Supp. 2d 949 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Nov 29, 2011

“If the law did not put the officer on notice that his conduct would be clearly unlawful, summary judgment based on qualified immunity is appropriate.” Id. at 202, 121 S.Ct. 2151 . … was clearly established at the time of the violation.

Turner v. Rataczak

28 F. Supp. 3d 818 · District Court, W.D. Wisconsin · Jun 18, 2014

Qualified Immunity In the .alternative, defendant argues that he is entitled to qualified immunity on plaintiffs excessive force claim. … Qualified immunity applies whenever a government official’s actions, even if unconstitutional, did not violate the “clearly established law” at the time. Pearson v.

Tatta v. Wright

616 F. Supp. 2d 308 · District Court, N.D. New York · Oct 10, 2007

Qualified immunity protects government officials from civil liability provided “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … Qualified Immunity Dr. Wright also contends that he is entitled to qualified immunity.

K.M. Ex Rel. D.G. v. Hyde Park Central School District

381 F. Supp. 2d 343 · District Court, S.D. New York · Aug 11, 2005

Qualified immunity shields a public official from civil liability when his conduct “does not violate a clearly established statutory or constitutional right.” Richardson v. … clearly established constitutional rights.

Kellom v. Quinn

381 F. Supp. 3d 800 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · May 21, 2019

Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability from civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … was clearly established at the time of the defendants's alleged misconduct.").

Cunningham v. Hamilton

259 F. Supp. 2d 457 · District Court, E.D. Virginia · Apr 25, 2003

If the Court finds that the officer’s conduct violated a constitutional right, the next sequential step is to ask whether the right was clearly established at the time of the events at issue. … The defendants are therefore entitled to qualified immunity.

Leland v. Mississippi State Board of Registration for Professional Engineers & Land Surveyors

841 F. Supp. 192 · District Court, S.D. Mississippi · Nov 9, 1993

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY The individual board members seek summary judgment contending that plaintiffs claims against them in their individual capacities must be dismissed on the basis of qualified immunity. 16 The court concludes … These defendants enjoy no qualified immunity for actions which violated clearly established constitutional rights of which defendants knew or reasonably should have known. See Harlow v.

Morris v. Dallas County

960 F. Supp. 2d 665 · District Court, N.D. Texas · Jun 18, 2013

When a qualified immunity defense is asserted on summary judgment, the plaintiff must rebut the defense by establishing that the officer’s alleged wrongful conduct violated clearly established law. Michalik v. … Conversely, an official is not protected by qualified immunity if, in light of clearly established pre-existing law, it was apparent that the conduct, when undertaken, would be a violation of the right at issue.

Pc v. Connecticut Department of Children and Families

662 F. Supp. 2d 218 · District Court, D. Connecticut · Jul 24, 2009

Such officials enjoy qualified immunity when they perform discretionary functions if either: “(1) their conduct did not violate clearly established rights of which a reasonable person would have known, or (2) it was objectively … As previously noted, the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity unless the plaintiffs’ allegations, if true, establish that their conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right.

Brown v. Chiappetta

806 F. Supp. 2d 1108 · District Court, D. Minnesota · Aug 23, 2011

Qualified Immunity “The doctrine of qualified immunity protects [police] officers from personal liability under § 1983 ‘insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established constitutional rights of which a reasonable … Qualified immunity is also warranted because the right to disclosure, as interpreted by Brown, was not clearly established at the time.

Hall v. Louisiana

12 F. Supp. 3d 878 · District Court, M.D. Louisiana · Mar 31, 2014

Qualified Immunity In support of their motion, Jindal and Caldwell argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity. … Qualified immunity protects government officials sued in their individual capacities “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which

Spreadbury v. Bitterroot Public Library

862 F. Supp. 2d 1054 · District Court, D. Montana · May 30, 2012

Qualified Immunity of City Officers Spreadbury disputes Judge Lynch’s finding that Officer Snavely, who investigated him for criminally trespassing on Library property, is entitled to qualified immunity. … Officer Snavely is thus entitled to qualified immunity for his decision to investigate Spreadbury for trespass.

Breidenbach v. Bolish

6 F. Supp. 2d 1161 · District Court, D. Colorado · Jun 3, 1998

Once a government official raises the defense of qualified immunity, plaintiff must “come forward with facts or allegations to show both that the defendant’s alleged conduct violated the law and that law was clearly established … issues of fact remain that would defeat his or her claim of qualified immunity.

K.T. v. Pittsburg Unified School District

219 F. Supp. 3d 970 · District Court, N.D. California · Nov 8, 2016

That said, sovereign immunity—unlike qualified immunity—“partakes of the nature of jurisdictional bar” and may be raised for the first time, well, anytime. See Edelman v. … K.T. is clearly a “qualified individual with a disability” under both statutes—and the District does not suggest otherwise, see MTD at 12-15; Reply at 14-16.

DiLegge v. Gleason

131 F. Supp. 2d 520 · District Court, S.D. New York · Feb 13, 2001

clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity if their action either 1) did not violate clearly established law, or 2) was objectively reasonable.

Green v. City of Mount Vernon

96 F. Supp. 3d 263 · District Court, S.D. New York · Mar 31, 2015

For claims brought under federal law, “[a] police officer is entitled to qualified immunity from liability for his discretionary actions if either (1) his conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … Qualified immunity may also be a defense to an excessive force claim.

Lewis v. Eufaula City Board of Education

922 F. Supp. 2d 1291 · District Court, M.D. Alabama · Dec 4, 2012

The second asserted defense is the doctrine of qualified immunity, which “protects government officials ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … Qualified immunity, which was once called “good-faith immunity,” see, e.g., Gomez v.

Lyle v. Dodd

857 F. Supp. 958 · District Court, N.D. Georgia · Mar 22, 1994

Accordingly, defendant Dodd is entitled to qualified immunity for any “arrest” 5 of plaintiff Lyle, b. … Because this standard establishes no bright line, qualified immunity applies unless application of this standard would inevitably lead every reasonable officer in defendant Dodd’s position to conclude the force was unlawful

Seattle Affiliate of the October 22nd Coalition to Stop Police Brutality, Repression & the Criminalization of a Generation v. City of Seattle

430 F. Supp. 2d 1185 · District Court, W.D. Washington · Apr 20, 2006

When a defendant claims qualified immunity from civil damages, plaintiff is required to show that the official has violated “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known … clearly established at the time he or she acted.