Case law

Crews v. County of Nassau

996 F. Supp. 2d 186 · District Court, E.D. New York · Feb 11, 2014

Qualified Immunity The County defendants also argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity. The Court disagrees. … Lemma did not argue for qualified immunity.

Martin v. Conner

882 F. Supp. 2d 820 · District Court, D. Maryland · Mar 2, 2012

Qualified Immunity a. Was the Right Clearly Established? The right not to be subjected to a traffic stop without reasonable suspicion was clearly established in 2009. … Qualified Immunity i. Was the Right Clearly Established?

Prakel v. Indiana

100 F. Supp. 3d 661 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Mar 30, 2015

Accordingly, there can be no dispute that Congress clearly and unequivocally expressed its intent to abrogate sovereign immunity for claims such as Mr. Prakel’s brought pursuant to Title II of the ADA. … To establish a violation of Title II, a plaintiff must show that: (1) he or she is a “qualified individual with a disability”; (2) he or she was excluded from participation in or denied the benefits of the services, programs

Davila v. Northern Regional Joint Police Board

979 F. Supp. 2d 612 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 21, 2013

A government official, such as a police officer, will be entitled to claim qualified immunity from suit unless (1) the officer’s conduct violated a constitutional right possessed by the plaintiff and (2) the right was “clearly … Because qualified immunity is not merely a defense to liability, but renders a defendant completely immune to suit, a court should determine at the earliest possible *627 stage whether a grant of qualified immunity would

Fierro v. City of New York

591 F. Supp. 2d 431 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jul 30, 2008

Bleadon Is Not Entitled to Qualified Immunity The First Amendment retaliation claims are only brought against Bleadon, who asserts a defense of qualified immunity. 106 While qualified immunity is an affirmative defense, the … .” 107 As usual, the plaintiff is “entitled to all reasonable inferences from the facts alleged, not only those that support his claim, but also those that defeat the immunity defense.” 108 Qualified immunity shields public

Zalaski v. City of Hartford

704 F. Supp. 2d 159 · District Court, D. Connecticut · Mar 31, 2010

The Defendants contend that there is an absence of a genuine issue of material fact as the City of Hartford is entitled to municipal immunity, Sergeant Albert is entitled to qualified immunity, and the Plaintiffs cannot establish … Qualified immunity protects a “government official acting in an official capacity from suit for damages under § 1983 unless the official violated clearly established rights of which an objectively reasonable official would

Ryan Robles v. Otero De Ramos

729 F. Supp. 920 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Nov 9, 1989

Defendants move for summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity. … QUALIFIED IMMUNITY A.

Rindley v. Gallagher

890 F. Supp. 1540 · District Court, S.D. Florida · Jun 21, 1995

“Once a defendant pleads a defense of qualified immunity, ‘[o]n summary judgment, the judge appropriately may determine, not only the currently applicable law, but whether that law was clearly established at the time an action … The doctrine of qualified immunity generally protects government officials performing discretionary functions as long as their conduct does not “violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable

Bolmer v. Oliveira

570 F. Supp. 2d 301 · District Court, D. Connecticut · Aug 5, 2008

Qualified immunity shields government officials for “performing discretionary functions,” and whose conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have … established law, or, whether it was objectively reasonable for him to believe that his actions violated clearly established law.

Thompson Ex Rel. Sustaita v. City of Galveston

979 F. Supp. 504 · District Court, S.D. Texas · Sep 19, 1997

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY The individual Defendants in this ease argue that they should not be subjected to suit in their individual capacities because they are protected by the doctrine of qualified immunity. … Clearly, if a plaintiffs claims do not specifically and clearly establish a constitutional violation, the claims against the individual Defendants must be dismissed.

McCrea v. Zieba

955 F. Supp. 801 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Nov 19, 1996

Moreover, Judge Zieba argues that he was protected from personal liability by the doctrine of qualified immunity because the law was not clearly established in 1991 and 1993 that a Court Administrator could not be discharged … Under the qualified immunity doctrine, “government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory

Johnson Ex Rel. Smith v. City of Lincoln Park

434 F. Supp. 2d 467 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Jun 8, 2006

right was clearly established.” … Because the Officer’s search of Plaintiff Smith did not violate clearly established law, Officer Cochran is entitled to qualified immunity.

Palacios v. City of Oakland

970 F. Supp. 732 · District Court, N.D. California · May 13, 1997

The qualified immunity test is a two-part inquiry: (1) was the law governing the official’s conduct clearly established? and (2) under that law, could a reasonable official have believed the conduct to be lawful? Act Up! … Therefore, where the law is clearly established, an officer found to have used unreasonable force will not be entitled to qualified immunity. See id. 7 .

Davis-El v. O'LEARY

626 F. Supp. 1037 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jan 17, 1986

In addition, they argue that the prison officials enjoy qualified immunity. In Walker v. … If the law was clearly established, the immunity defense ordinarily should fail. Id. at 818-19 , 102 S.Ct. at 2738.

Oracle America, Inc. v. Oregon Health Insurance Exchange Corp.

145 F. Supp. 3d 1018 · District Court, D. Oregon · Nov 18, 2015

The Court then looked to the *1029 rest of the 1951 Acts in an effort to resolve the ambiguity and “to clearly establish the scope of the States’ more general consent to suit.” Id. at 306 , 110 S.Ct. 1868 . … The authority to waive immunity “must' be clearly expressed” in these sources. Id. (citation omitted).

Hameed v. Coughlin

37 F. Supp. 2d 133 · District Court, N.D. New York · Feb 2, 1999

immunity is not clearly erroneous. … Qualified immunity bars an action for damages based on a constitutional right that is not “clearly established.” See Richardson v. Selsky, 5 F.3d 616, 621 (2d Cir.1993).

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.

Russo v. City of Hartford

158 F. Supp. 2d 214 · District Court, D. Connecticut · Aug 2, 2001

If the court finds that a constitutional right would have been violated were the allegations established, the court then considers “whether the right was clearly established.” Id. … Such allegations are sufficient to establish a claim that the police defendants violated Russo’s clearly established Fourth Amendment rights and were not objectively reasonable in committing such violations.

Davis v. City of New York

373 F. Supp. 2d 322 · District Court, S.D. New York · May 31, 2005

The subsequent question is whether “the law clearly established that the officer’s conduct was unlawful in the circumstances of the case.” Id. … given to judges or prosecutors, but would limit them to qualified immunity.

Deffendall v. Indian River County Sheriff

District Court, S.D. Florida · Mar 18, 2024

To overcome a qualified- immunity defense, a plaintiff must (1) allege facts that, “if true, establish a constitutional violation” and (2) show that “the right violated was ‘clearly established.’” Grider v. … Only the United States Supreme Court, the Eleventh Circuit, and the Florida Supreme Court can “clearly establish” the law for purposes of qualified immunity.