Case law

Damon v. Hukowicz

964 F. Supp. 2d 120 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Aug 9, 2013

Qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions from liability for civil damages when “their *147 conduct does not violate ‘clearly established’ statutory or constitutional rights of which … immunity because it was not clearly established that such conduct violated Plaintiffs Fourth Amendment rights.

Trebian v. Merrimack County HOC

2001 DNH 139 · District Court, D. New Hampshire · Jul 31, 2001

"Qualified immunity shields state officials exercising discretionary authority from civil damages 'insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … Accordingly, the individual defendants are entitled to qualified immunity with respect to Trebian's procedural due process claims because the law on which Trebian bases his claims was not clearly established when the

Cavazos v. Edgewood Independent School District

400 F. Supp. 2d 948 · District Court, W.D. Texas · Aug 3, 2005

Even if the government official’s conduct violates a clearly established right, the official is nonetheless entitled to qualified immunity if his conduct was objectively reasonable. Id. … Qualified Immunity Plaintiffs’ allegation, even if assumed to be true, do not establish a violation of a clearly established right against Defendants.

Williams v. City of Brockton

59 F. Supp. 3d 228 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Nov 13, 2014

“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 … Therefore, the *244 individual Police Defendants have not established that they are immune from liability on Williams’ surviving claims against them under the doctrine of qualified immunity. D.

Doe v. Bobbitt

698 F. Supp. 1415 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Nov 4, 1988

They say that they have such immunity since Michelle did not have a clearly established constitutional right to be free of the abuse she is alleged to have suffered. Michelle cites Brooks v. … The defendants thus have no qualified immunity from any civil damages liability that may result from Michelle’s § 1983 claims.

Diamond v. Chulay

811 F. Supp. 1321 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jan 26, 1993

Qualified immunity shields government officials from liability for civil damages when they perform discretionary functions, unless their acts violate clearly established constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … Qualified immunity is appropriate here because the position that Diamond held is not clearly established as one requiring protection from a termination based on political reasons.

Pomykacz v. Borough of West Wildwood

438 F. Supp. 2d 504 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Jul 20, 2006

Officer Ferentz and Mayor Fox are entitled to qualified immunity from the § 1983 claims “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would … A reasonable official would know that these actions violated Pomykacz’s clearly established constitutional rights. See Cuvo v.

Thompson v. ANOKA-HENNEPIN EAST METRO NARCOTICS

673 F. Supp. 2d 805 · District Court, D. Minnesota · Nov 3, 2009

To survive a motion for summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds, the plaintiff must (1) assert a violation of a constitutional right; (2) demonstrate that the alleged right is clearly established; and (3) raise a genuine … Katz, the Supreme Court mandated a two-step sequential test for resolving qualified immunity claims — the establishment of a violation of a constitutional right and that the right in question is “clearly established” at the

Perez v. Diaz

331 F. Supp. 3d 1101 · District Court, S.D. California · Sep 21, 2017

Applicable Law "In determining whether an officer is entitled to qualified immunity, we consider (1) whether there has been a violation of a constitutional right; and (2) whether that right was clearly established at the … If the right was not clearly established at the time of the alleged misconduct, "the officer receives qualified immunity." S.B. , 864 F.3d at 1015 .

West v. Duncan

179 F. Supp. 2d 794 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Dec 14, 2001

State actors lose this immunity when they violate clearly established constitutional rights of which a reasonable person should have known. … Harlow, 457 *802 U.S. at 818, 102 S.Ct. 2727 (holding that qualified immunity shields state actors only “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable

Aguirre-Molina v. New York State Division of Alcoholism & Alcohol Abuse

675 F. Supp. 53 · District Court, N.D. New York · Nov 12, 1987

Assuming that a prima facie case has been established, the Division has clearly articulated legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for its actions, thus rebutting any presumption of discrimination. … Determining whether an agency established by the state should be afforded the state’s eleventh amendment immunity, however, is not always an easy task.

Harper Ex Rel. Harper v. Poway Unified School District

345 F. Supp. 2d 1096 · District Court, S.D. California · Nov 4, 2004

on qualified immunity grounds. … The affirmative defense 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

Colandrea v. Town of Orangetown

490 F. Supp. 2d 342 · District Court, S.D. New York · May 18, 2007

With respect to qualified immunity, public officials are entitled to qualified immunity if: “(1) their conduct does not violate clearly established constitutional rights, or (2) it was objectively reasonable for them to believe … established right, or was objectively reasonable in light of clearly established law.

Huminski v. RUTLAND COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPT.

211 F. Supp. 2d 520 · District Court, D. Vermont · Jul 11, 2002

Qualified Immunity State and municipal officers sued under Section 1983 are immune from claims for monetary relief "insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … "Clearly Established" Rights The genuine factual dispute regarding Defendants' motivations prevents the Court from granting Defendants' motions for summary judgment under the second step of the qualified immunity test.

Nelson v. Payne

827 F. Supp. 1273 · District Court, S.D. Texas · Dec 29, 1992

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY DEFENSE Liability can only be imposed on the individual defendants if it is shown that they knew or should have known that their conduct violated a person’s clearly established constitutional rights. … The individual defendants have raised this qualified immunity defense and the Court finds that as a matter of law it should be sustained.

Alvarez v. Wilson

431 F. Supp. 136 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Mar 7, 1977

or qualified immunity. … immunity itself should be qualified or absolute.

Wright v. Reynolds

703 F. Supp. 583 · District Court, N.D. Texas · Aug 18, 1988

Qualified Immunity Defendant Reynolds alleges that has qualified immunity from suit. … If the Defendant presents evidence which supports his claim of qualified immunity, then the Plaintiff has the burden of presenting evidence which contradicts the factual basis for qualified immunity contained in Defendant

Wesolowski v. Washburn

615 F. Supp. 2d 126 · District Court, W.D. New York · May 18, 2009

, however, I agree with defendants that they are entitled to qualified immunity from liability for their actions in that regard. … Particularly given the applicable DOCS regulations (which themselves do not appear to be inconsistent with inmates’ federal constitutional rights), defendant’s “actions did not violate any of plaintiffs clearly established

Taylor v. City of Detroit

368 F. Supp. 2d 676 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Apr 19, 2005

Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, government officials who perform discretionary *683 functions will not incur liability for civil damages “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or … ; and (4) the officers were not entitled to qualified immunity.

King v. Marmon

793 F. Supp. 1030 · District Court, D. Kansas · Jun 15, 1992

“The doctrine of qualified immunity provides that government officials ‘generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights … Once a defendant raises the defense of qualified immunity, the plaintiff carries the burden of convincing the court the law was clearly established. Id. at 1460 .