Case law

Black Hawk v. Pennsylvania

225 F. Supp. 2d 465 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 25, 2002

Qualified Immunity The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials “performing discretionary functions ... from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … Where the defense of qualified immunity is asserted, the plaintiff shoulders the initial burden of showing that the challenged conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right. Sherwood v.

Willis v. Shaw

186 F.R.D. 358 · District Court, E.D. Texas · Apr 5, 1999

Second, the court must determine whether the constitutional right was clearly established, or, in other words, whether the defendant official’s actions were objectively unreasonable. … Plaintiffs, in alleging the violation of them First Amendment right to access to courts, have clearly alleged a violation of a constitutional right and, therefore, met the first part of the qualified immunity test.

Flynn v. Mills

361 F. Supp. 2d 866 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Mar 25, 2005

If so, the Court must determine “whether the right was clearly established.” Id. at 201, 121 S.Ct. 2151 ; Leaf, 400 F.3d at 1079-80 . … Accordingly, the Court need not proceed to the second part of the qualified immunity analysis, namely whether the constitutional right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation.

M.S. ex rel. Soltys v. Seminole County School Board

636 F. Supp. 2d 1317 · District Court, M.D. Florida · Jul 10, 2009

duties have the benefit of qualified immunity when sued in their individual capacities so long as their conduct does not violate any clearly established statutory or constitutional rights known to a reasonable person. … Whether the Law Was Clearly Established The right to be free from excessive and arbitrary corporal punishment in a school context is clearly established under the precedent of the U.S.

Hicks v. Cassilly

971 F. Supp. 956 · District Court, D. Maryland · Jul 24, 1997

Rather, where a clearly established right is involved, a finding of qualified immunity depends on whether defendants’ actions were reasonable. … (finding that Ybarra doctrine is clearly established and, therefore, that qualified immunity does not shield police defendants who conducted a pat-down search of customers at a bar); Johns v.

Thornton v. City of Montgomery, Ala.

78 F. Supp. 2d 1218 · District Court, M.D. Alabama · Aug 31, 1999

Where the law that the defendants allegedly violated was not clearly established at the time of the alleged offense, the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. See id. at 807 , 102 S.Ct. at 2732 . … Georgia Military College, 147 F.3d 1337 , 1343 n. 14 (11th Cir.1998), clung to the approach that a court may pass directly to the "clearly established" prong of the qualified immunity determination without first pausing to

Adams v. Township of Champion, Ohio

68 F. Supp. 2d 906 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Oct 21, 1999

Government officials are generally entitled to qualified immunity when performing discretionary functions as long as the conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … In order to assert a violation of a “clearly established” right and defeat a qualified immunity defense “[t]he contours of a right must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing

Harte v. Board of Commissioners

151 F. Supp. 3d 1168 · District Court, D. Kansas · Dec 18, 2015

When a defendant asserts qualified immunity at summary judgment, the “burden shifts to the plaintiff to show that: (1) the defendant violated a constitutional right and (2) the constitutional right was clearly established … In the context of a qualified immunity defense on an unlawful search claim, the court determines whether a defendant violated clearly established ' law “by asking whether there‘was ‘arguable probable cause’” for the challenged

Batson v. Hoover

355 F. Supp. 3d 604 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Dec 21, 2018

Although the qualified immunity defense may be raised at any stage of the case, when it is raised in a motion for summary judgment, as here, courts must weave the summary judgment standard into each step of the qualified … "In qualified immunity cases, this usually means adopting...the plaintiff's version of the facts." Scott , 550 U.S. at 378 , 127 S.Ct. 1769 .

PETROLINO v. County of Spokane

678 F. Supp. 2d 1082 · District Court, E.D. Washington · Aug 14, 2009

The corrections officers seek qualified immunity. As a general rule, analyzing a request for qualified immunity is a two-step process. Saucier v. … Even assuming a jury issue exists with respect to whether Deputies Skinner and Leonetti violated the Constitution, they are entitled to qualified immunity unless it was clearly established on May 1, 2004, that corrections

Marshall v. Borough of Ambridge

798 F. Supp. 1187 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 17, 1992

The doctrine of 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 … established constitutional duty and that he was entitled to qualified immunity.”

Draper v. Darby Township Police Department

777 F. Supp. 2d 850 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 7, 2011

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 a reasonable person … was ‘clearly established’ at the time of defendant’s alleged misconduct.”

Clark v. Palmer

District Court, D. New Hampshire · Oct 3, 1996

immunity from suit in civil rights actions under section 1983, provided "their conduct did 'not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable [government official] would have known … Moreover, the issue of qualified immunity is a matter of law for the court to determine. See Hegarty, supra, 53 F.3d at 1373-74.

David v. Village of Oak Lawn

954 F. Supp. 1241 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Dec 30, 1996

Under the doctrine of qualified immunity for section 1983 liability, “public officials performing discretionary functions are protected against suits for damages unless their conduct violates clearly established statutory … The Seventh Circuit has established a two-part test for a ruling on qualified immunity: (1) whether the conduct sets out a constitutional violation; and (2) whether the constitutional standards were clearly established at

Crockett v. Nea-Alaska

367 F. Supp. 3d 996 · District Court, D. Alaska · Mar 14, 2019

immunity. … They base such an argument on the fact that qualified immunity only applies to individual officials, not government entities. Again, however, qualified immunity is not the same as a good-faith affirmative defense.

Johnson v. Collins

58 F. Supp. 2d 890 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jul 22, 1999

Qualified Immunity Doctrine Applied As noted, a state official is entitled to qualified immunity unless the plaintiff alleges the deprivation of a constitutional right, a right that was “clearly established” when the state … The second prong of the Kemats qualified immunity test is likewise satisfied because the right to suitable foster care placement was “clearly established” in K.H. ex rel Murphy v.

Ortiz v. Pearson

88 F. Supp. 2d 151 · District Court, S.D. New York · Feb 22, 2000

Qualified Immunity Government officials performing discretionary functions are entitled to qualified immunity from liability for civil damages “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … Furthermore, even when a plaintiffs constitutional rights and the scope of the “permissible conduct are clearly established, the qualified immunity defense protects a government official if it was ‘objectively reasonable’

Dykes v. Weinberg

564 F. Supp. 536 · District Court, M.D. Florida · Apr 15, 1983

The Court held that “governmental officials performing discretionary functions” are entitled to qualified immunity “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … .-, 102 S.Ct. 2727 , 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982), Weinberg is entitled to qualified immunity if his conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.

Johnson v. District of Columbia

461 F. Supp. 2d 48 · District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 14, 2006

First he argues that the claims against him must be dismissed because he is entitled to qualified immunity. … The next question in deciding qualified immunity is whether the constitutional rights in question were clearly established at the time of the alleged violation. Int’l Action Ctr., 365 F.3d at 24 .

Herbal Sensations, Inc. v. Rivera

270 F. Supp. 2d 234 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Jun 30, 2003

The Court concludes that absolute immunity does not extend to these particular defendants’ actions. They may, however, be entitled to qualified immunity. III. … Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions from civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate a clearly established statutory or constitutional right which