Case law

Malik v. Tanner

697 F. Supp. 1294 · District Court, S.D. New York · Oct 7, 1988

As Magistrate Buchwald stated in her Report, the “doctrine of qualified immunity precludes a finding of liability when a government official performing discretionary functions can establish that it was objectively reasonable … for him to believe that his conduct did not violate plaintiff’s clearly established statutory or constitutional rights.’’

Durham v. Horner

759 F. Supp. 2d 810 · District Court, W.D. Virginia · Dec 13, 2010

Horner has filed a Motion for Summary Judgment, contending, among other things, that he is entitled to qualified immunity. … Consequently, qualified immunity attaches when the government actor’s conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v.

Naccarato v. Scarselli

124 F. Supp. 2d 36 · District Court, N.D. New York · Dec 14, 2000

Qualified Immunity The defendants also contend that they are entitled to qualified immunity with respect to plaintiffs false arrest and imprisonment and malicious prosecution claims. … “The doctrine of qualified immunity shields police officers acting in their official capacity from suits for damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 , unless their actions violate clearly-established rights of which an objectively

Noe v. Stockwell

630 F. Supp. 334 · District Court, E.D. Texas · Mar 19, 1986

These pleadings, together with the transcript, raise substantial fact questions regarding whether or not clearly established constitutional law as set forth in the following cases and regulation was violated: Pell v. … immunity to be submitted to the jury, without an interlocutory appeal being taken on the issue of qualified immunity.

Reynolds v. Calhoun

District Court, M.D. Alabama · Sep 19, 2022

“[Q]ualified 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 … Parsing more finely to avoid defining clearly established law at a high level of generality, the Court asks whether, under the facts alleged in the amended complaint and in January 2020, it was clearly established law that

Fiorenzo v. Nolan

755 F. Supp. 801 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jan 30, 1991

Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, “public officials performing discretionary functions are protected against suits for damages unless their conduct violates clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of … Given this holding the court need not address the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis — whether the constitutional standards allegedly violated were clearly established at the time in question. .

Baez v. Rapping

680 F. Supp. 112 · District Court, S.D. New York · Feb 10, 1988

In this case, the defendants, as state prison and medical officials, are entitled to qualified immunity from suit. … The official cannot be expected to predict the future course *115 constitutional law, ... but he will not be shielded from liability if he acts “with such disregard of the [individual’s] clearly established constitutional

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 .

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).

Sledge v. Stoldt

480 F. Supp. 2d 530 · District Court, D. Connecticut · Mar 29, 2007

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 or constitutional … Because the Randolph rule was not clearly established at the time, the officers are entitled to qualified immunity from a Randolph claim. See Johnson v. Weaver, 2006 WL 2850493 , 2006 U.S. Dist.

Johnson v. Collins

564 F. Supp. 2d 759 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Jul 9, 2008

Defendant is not entitled to immunity or qualified immunity because Plaintiff may be able to show a violation of federal law. … Second, Plaintiff can show that this right was “clearly established.” Dickerson, 101 F.3d at 1158 .

Mrosek v. Kraatz

178 F. Supp. 2d 104 · District Court, D. Connecticut · Sep 30, 2001

Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, “government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … The problem is that “[t]he ‘clearly established law’ and ‘objective reasonableness’ facets of current qualified immunity doctrine tug in opposite directions where ... the ‘clearly established law’ itself contains a subjective

Schultz v. Utah County

966 F. Supp. 2d 1246 · District Court, D. Utah · Aug 19, 2013

Defendants assert that Sergeant Higley is entitled to summary judgment under the doctrine of qualified immunity. 59 Officers are entitled to qualified immunity when “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … immunity inquiry turns on whether the right allegedly violated was clearly established at the time of the incident 63 “such that a reasonable person in the defendant’s position would have known that his conduct violated

Russo v. Voorhees Township

403 F. Supp. 2d 352 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Nov 29, 2005

Governmental officials are generally granted qualified immunity so that they are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of … If no constitutional right would have been violated were the allegations established, there is no necessity for further inquiries concerning qualified immunity. Saucier v.

Maryland State Conference of NAACP Branches v. Maryland Department of State Police

72 F. Supp. 2d 560 · District Court, D. Maryland · Sep 30, 1999

Qualified Immunity Government officials performing discretionary functions are entitled to qualified immunity from liability for civil damages to the extent that “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … In regard to qualified immunity, the plaintiffs do not suggest there was a clearly established right to have “balanced” statistics (see Defts.

Greer v. Ivey

242 F. Supp. 3d 1284 · District Court, M.D. Florida · Mar 14, 2017

Clearly Established Law Even assuming a constitutional violation, Haman and Canela “are entitled to qualified immunity unless Plaintiff can show that his Fourth Amendment rights were ‘clearly established’ at the time of the … Under the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis, “[t]he relevant, dispositive inquiry in determining whether a right is clearly established is whether it would be clear to a reasonable [police officer] that his

R.S.S.W., Inc. v. City of Keego Harbor

56 F. Supp. 2d 798 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Jun 28, 1999

Clearly, the acts Plaintiffs complain of are ultimately legislative acts and each City Council Member is entitled to legislative immunity. … In Veney , the Sixth Circuit addressed the pleading requirement in cases involving qualified immunity: when a plaintiff pleads his claim in generalized “notice” form, and the defense of qualified immunity is asserted through

Arditi v. Subers

216 F. Supp. 3d 544 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 25, 2016

Under the qualified immunity doctrine, law enforcement officers acting within their professional capacity are immune from suit “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights … seizure is clearly established. 2.

Liedtke v. Ploeckelman

827 F. Supp. 575 · District Court, E.D. Wisconsin · Jul 22, 1993

The doctrine of qualified immunity protects public officials performing discretionary functions against suits for damages unless their conduct violates clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … The qualified immunity inquiry is objective and not subjective. “[A]ll public officials are presumed to know clearly established law, whether or not they have in fact ever cracked a law book.” Woods v.

Jones v. Basoukas

District Court, D. New Hampshire · Feb 3, 1997

A government official exercising discretionary authority is entitled to qualified immunity in respect to § 1983 claims only if his or her conduct does not violate "clearly established" statutory or constitutional rights … When a defendant moves for summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity, it is the plaintiff's burden to demonstrate that the defendant infringed a "clearly established" federal right.