Case law

Patrick v. Moorman

855 F. Supp. 2d 392 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 23, 2012

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 … Whether the Purported Right Was Clearly Established Even if we did not conclude that Moorman’s apprehension of Patrick satisfied the strictures of the Fourth Amendment, Moorman would still be entitled to qualified immunity

Kirkwood v. DeLONG

683 F. Supp. 2d 823 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Feb 1, 2010

Qualified Immunity Finally, the Defendants argue that they are entitled to summary judgment based on a theory of qualified immunity. … Government officials, including police officers, are protected by the doctrine of qualified immunity for actions that could have been reasonably believed to be lawful in light of clearly established law. Anderson v.

Tilson v. City of Elkhart, Ind.

317 F. Supp. 2d 861 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · May 1, 2003

Qualified Immunity Even if a constitutional violation had occurred, the Defendants argue that DeJong’s conduct did not violate clearly established standards under existing case law and therefore he would be entitled to qualified … to qualified immunity.

McGrath v. Town of Sandwich

169 F. Supp. 3d 251 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Sep 29, 2015

Qualified immunity protects a state official against § 1983 suits unless 1) the official violated the plaintiffs constitutional right and 2) that right was clearly established at the time of the violation. Pearson v. … The Court declines to conclude, as a matter of law, that Officer Bondarek had qualified immunity or that Ty’s claim is without substance.

Tapley v. Collins

41 F. Supp. 2d 1366 · District Court, S.D. Georgia · Mar 26, 1999

For that reason, if a government official is acting wholly outside his discretionary authority, he is not entitled to qualified immunity regardless of whether the law in a given area was clearly established”). … “In this circuit, the law can be ‘clearly established’ for qualified immunity purposes only by decisions [at the time of the challenged conduct] by the U.S.

Polenz v. Parrott

694 F. Supp. 599 · District Court, E.D. Wisconsin · Sep 14, 1988

The defendants assert that they are entitled to qualified immunity from § 1983 liability under the standard of “objective reasonableness” for government officials performing discretionary acts. … It would be anomolous for this court to hold that the defendants are shielded from § 1983 liability because their conduct did not violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person

Doe v. County of Suffolks

494 F. Supp. 179 · District Court, E.D. New York · Jul 14, 1980

Plaintiff disagrees and argues that the only immunity available to defendant Altman is the qualified good faith defense defined by the Supreme Court in Scheuer v. … Most other public officials may claim a qualified, good faith immunity. Absolute immunity is intended to protect defendants from the burden even of defending a lawsuit..

Givens v. O'QUINN

447 F. Supp. 2d 593 · District Court, W.D. Virginia · Aug 30, 2006

“Qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions from personal-capacity liability for civil damages under § 1983, insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … ‘clearly established’ right ‘of which a reasonable person would have known.’ ” Id.

Willis v. Mullins

809 F. Supp. 2d 1227 · District Court, E.D. California · Aug 16, 2011

Qualified immunity on this issue can not be determined at this time. 2. … For qualified immunity analysis, “the objective (albeit fact-specific) question [is] whether a reasonable officer could have believed [the police defendant’s] warrantless search to be lawful, in light of clearly established

Herrera v. Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department

298 F. Supp. 2d 1043 · District Court, D. Nevada · Jan 20, 2004

while acting personally under color of state law, and (2) that the official is not entitled to the protection of qualified immunity. … Qualified immunity generally protects government officials so long as their conduct does not “violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Baker v.

McKoy v. District of Columbia

District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 27, 2021

The doctrine of qualified immunity shields police officers “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … Mem. at 5–7, 9–11 (asserting the application of qualified immunity and qualified privilege to the officers’ uses of force); Pl.’s Mem. at 4–6, 7–8 (arguing against the application of qualified immunity for all claims involving

Martinez Verde v. Pasco County Sheriff's Department

District Court, M.D. Florida · Mar 8, 2023

Assuming probable cause and arguable probable cause were lacking for Plaintiff’s arrest, they claim that qualified immunity still applies because there was no violation of clearly established law to make out a First Amendment … Qualified immunity shields federal and state officials from money damages unless the plaintiff can establish that (1) the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) the right was clearly

Melville v. Town of Adams

9 F. Supp. 3d 77 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Mar 27, 2014

The Magistrate Judge also decided that Plaintiff had a clearly established right to be heard at a meaningful time and in a meaningful way, and therefore qualified immunity did not protect Defendants. … Qualified Immunity As to the Board members’ individual-capacity liability, the court concludes that qualified immunity is not available on these facts at this time. “[T]he qualified immunity inquiry is a two-part test.

Lopez v. Reynolds

998 F. Supp. 252 · District Court, W.D. New York · Dec 2, 1997

Qualified Immunity! … Even when such rights are clearly established, qualified immunity will protect a government official “if it was objectively reasonable for [the official] to believe that his acts did not violate those rights.”

Kamenesh v. City of Miami

772 F. Supp. 583 · District Court, S.D. Florida · Jul 15, 1991

Defendants’ Assertion of Qualified Immunity Defendants, in their individual capacities, contend that their actions are entitled to qualified immunity from Kamenesh’s constitutional tort claims. 13 “[Gjovernment officials … its discussion of qualified immunity to those general parameters. 14 .

Detz v. Hoover

539 F. Supp. 532 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · May 20, 1982

City of Independence, 445 U.S. 622 , 100 S.Ct. 1398 , 63 L.Ed.2d 673 (1980), established the proposition that township supervisors are not entitled to good faith immunity from a § 1983 suit. … Curry, 409 U.S. 1042 , 93 S.Ct. 529 , 34 L.Ed.2d 492 (1973) (qualified governmental immunity for alderman).

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

Gallegos Ex Rel. Gallegos v. Haggerty

689 F. Supp. 93 · District Court, N.D. New York · Apr 12, 1988

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY Defendants assert that they are entitled to qualified immunity. In Harlow v. … The qualified immunity doctrine provides immunity from suit, not simply trial, Mitchell v.

Guy v. State of Illinois

958 F. Supp. 1300 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Feb 14, 1997

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY Defendants Pack and Nader contend that dismissal of plaintiffs § 1983 claim against them is warranted on the basis that they are entitled to qualified immunity. … The determination of whether defendants are entitled to qualified immunity often involves factual issues regarding defendants’ conduct, and therefore, “it is rarely appropriate to address the question of qualified immunity

Rinaldi v. City of New York

756 F. Supp. 111 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jul 6, 1990

Qualified Immunity from § 1983 Liability The standard for qualified immunity from § 1983 liability is the objective reasonableness of the official action challenged in light of clearly established law. See Anderson v. … For these reasons, summary judgment on the issue of qualified immunity is denied. The issue of qualified immunity is preserved for trial. B.