Case law

Wilson v. Vickery

267 F. Supp. 2d 587 · District Court, E.D. Texas · Oct 17, 2002

Ultimately, a state actor is entitled to qualified immunity if his or her conduct was objectively reasonable in light of the legal rules that were clearly established at the time of his or her actions. See Wilson v. … Sheriff Cain has conclusively established each element of the affirmative defense of qualified immunity and is, therefore, entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Smith v. Baca

District Court, D. Nevada · Dec 19, 2019

First, Defendants object that prison visitation is 22 not a clearly established right. (Id. at 5, 9.) … Nevertheless, a 10 defendant can assert a defense of qualified immunity depending on (1) whether there is a 11 constitutional violation, which is a question of fact, and (2) whether that right was clearly 12 established

Nelson v. City of Wichita, Kansas

217 F. Supp. 2d 1179 · District Court, D. Kansas · Aug 22, 2002

Qualified immunity provides government officials immunity from suit as well as from liability for their discretionary acts. Mitchell v. … The Supreme Court has established a two-part approach to determine if qualified immunity applies.

Parker v. Town of Swansea

270 F. Supp. 2d 92 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · May 27, 2003

The officers, however, contend that they are protected by the doctrine of qualified immunity. … Town of Plymouth, 191 F.3d at 23 (disputed facts precluded summary judgment on issue of qualified immunity); Swain v.

United States v. Pisarski

274 F. Supp. 3d 1032 · District Court, N.D. California · Aug 8, 2017

Expanding upon the CUA, California’s Medical Marijuana Program Act (“MMPA”) provides immunity from criminal sanction for, among other things, the .possession, cultivation, possession for sale, and sale of marijuana to “qualified … of each collective would be at the time, of any future sale such that their qualified patient or caregiver status could be established.

Baxley v. City of North Charleston

533 F. Supp. 1248 · District Court, D. South Carolina · Mar 11, 1982

Defendants Simmons’ and Bourne’s Qualified Immunity Defense. … The general rule of qualified immunity was first articulated in Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232 , 94 S.Ct. 1683 , 40 L.Ed.2d 90 (1974).

Kutilek v. Gannon

766 F. Supp. 967 · District Court, D. Kansas · May 30, 1991

Once the defense of qualified immunity is raised, the plaintiffs must “come forward with facts or allegations to show both that the defendant’s alleged conduct violated the law and that the law was clearly established when … that the defendant’s actions were clearly prohibited.”

Ngwenyama v. Board of Regents of the University of Michigan

29 F. Supp. 2d 402 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Dec 9, 1998

When a defendant moves for summary judgment and claims qualified immunity, the burden is on plaintiff in a § 1983 action to allege and prove that defendant officials violated a “clearly established statutory or constitutional … a clearly established law.”

Davis v. Brouillette

349 F. Supp. 2d 847 · District Court, D. Vermont · Nov 18, 2004

If no constitutional right was violated, there is no need for further inquiries concerning qualified immunity. Id. If a constitutional violation occurred, however, the court must conduct a qualified immunity analysis. … The court must consider whether the officer could have reasonably, but mistakenly, believed that his conduct did not violate a clearly established right. See id. at 201-202, 121 S.Ct. 2151 .

Weiner v. McKeefery

90 F. Supp. 3d 17 · District Court, E.D. New York · Mar 11, 2015

Applicable Law The doctrine of qualified immunity shields government officials from civil liability if their “conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would … Relevant to this case, an arresting officer is entitled to qualified immunity on claims of false arrest and malicious prosecution if either: (a) “his conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional

Jones v. City of Topeka

790 F. Supp. 256 · District Court, D. Kansas · Apr 27, 1992

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY The individual defendants, Douglas S. Wright, Ronald S. Miller, and Harry L. … “The test for qualified immunity is whether defendants violated ‘clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’ ” Powell v.

Rauccio v. Frank

750 F. Supp. 566 · District Court, D. Connecticut · Oct 29, 1990

Finally, defendants claim that as individuals they are entitled to either qualified immunity under Harlow v. … Government officials who do not qualify for absolute immunity may nevertheless, in an appropriate case, be entitled to assert the defense of qualified immunity which shields them from liability for civil damages insofar as

Garst v. Brown

452 F. Supp. 427 · District Court, E.D. Virginia · Jun 5, 1978

Sections 1985 and 1986 were not established to provide a general federal tort law and the Court deems them to be clearly inapplicable in the instant case. See Griffin v. … These individuals have a qualified immunity if they acted in good faith. Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409 , 96 S.Ct. 984 , 47 L.Ed.2d 128 (1976); Wood v.

Crowe v. County of San Diego

303 F. Supp. 2d 1050 · District Court, S.D. California · Feb 17, 2004

“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.” Saucier, 533 U.S. at 202 , 121 S.Ct. 2151 . … may be correct that this issue has not been addressed by the Supreme Court, Ninth Circuit law can “clearly establish” the law for qualified immunity purposes.

McIntyre v. Robinson

126 F. Supp. 2d 394 · District Court, D. Maryland · Nov 21, 2000

Defendants’ primary argument is that they are protected from liability in this regard on the basis of qualified immunity because, in the familiar words of the Supreme Court, their conduct did not violate “clearly established … McKinney in 1993, the right of a prisoner to be free from unreasonable levels of ETS has been clearly established.

Baron v. Hickey

242 F. Supp. 2d 66 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jan 31, 2003

Sheriff Rouse’s Qualified Immunity Defendant Rouse claims that he is entitled to summary judgment because he enjoys qualified immunity from suit against plaintiffs § 1983 claims. … “Qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions from civil damages ‘insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable

Johnson v. District of Columbia

District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 19, 2024

Relief under 2 A motion for reconsideration of a court order denying qualified immunity is properly brought under Rule 59(e). See Hanson v. … Qualified Immunity Defendants’ objection to the Court’s denial of qualified immunity fares no better.

Labensky v. Cornwell

763 F. Supp. 2d 921 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Sep 1, 2010

Qualified Immunity Cornwell asserts that qualified immunity protects him from being liable to Labensky. Qualified Immunity shields a government official from liability for civil damages. … When qualified immunity is invoked, unless a defendant’s conduct violates clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a “reasonable person would have known,” courts shall not require him to stand trial

Sharpe v. District of Columbia

860 F. Supp. 2d 61 · District Court, District of Columbia · May 18, 2012

Qualified Immunity 4 Detective Clingerman pleads in the alternative that he is protected by qualified immunity 5 for his actions in connection with the search of plaintiffs’ apartment. (Dkt. No. 2 at 9.). … Qualified immunity is immunity from suit rather than a mere defense to liability. Hunter 20 v. Bryant, 502 U.S. 22, 227 (1991).

Waechter v. School District No. 14-030 of Cassopolis

773 F. Supp. 1005 · District Court, W.D. Michigan · Sep 11, 1991

Finally, defendants contend that they are protected by eleventh amendment qualified immunity. … If the defendants’ actions were objectively reasonable as measured by clearly established law, then they are immune from liability. Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 , 102 S.Ct. 2727, 2738 , 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982).