Case law

South Middlesex Opportunity Council, Inc. v. Town of Framingham

752 F. Supp. 2d 85 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Sep 9, 2010

The Defendants have not established that qualified immunity applies to the alleged conduct here. … Similarly, a qualified immunity defense would have to establish that SMOC’s rights under the FHA were not clearly established at the time of the alleged violations, and consequently that a reasonable person in the Defendants

Schwartz v. Dennison

518 F. Supp. 2d 560 · District Court, S.D. New York · Sep 28, 2007

V.Qualified Immunity The doctrine of qualified immunity shields state officials from personal liability if their actions did not violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … If either the right was not clearly established, or it was objectively reasonable for the defendant to believe the acts did not violate plaintiffs rights, the defendant is entitled to qualified immunity. 10 The first inquiry

Smith v. United States

896 F. Supp. 1183 · District Court, M.D. Florida · Aug 17, 1995

Qualified Immunity Procknow and Goodwill have urged that they be accorded qualified immunity from suit in this case. … "Qualified immunity protects government officials performing discretionary functions from civil trials ... and from liability if their conduct violates no `clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a

Davis v. Robert

192 F. Supp. 3d 847 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Jun 29, 2016

Qualified Immunity Being sued in her individual capacity, Hall is entitled to assert qualified immunity. Guest v. Leis, 255 F.3d 325, 337 (6th Cir.2001). … Therefore, at this stage of the litigation, Hall is not entitled to qualified immunity on that basis.

Navin v. Iowa Department of Corrections

843 F. Supp. 500 · District Court, N.D. Iowa · Feb 9, 1994

Although these rights are clearly established in their general contours, their alleged violation by restrictions on visitation were far less clear. … The court reaffirms its conclusion that defendants are entitled to qualified immunity.

Rogan v. Menino

973 F. Supp. 72 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Aug 19, 1997

Acts ch. 664, they should be shielded by qualified immunity for their conduct in doing so. … Contrary to the MBTA Defendant’s assertions, this right was clearly established at the time of Rogan’s accident. See Germany v.

Micalizzi v. Ciamarra

206 F. Supp. 2d 564 · District Court, S.D. New York · May 29, 2002

O’Donnell’s statement to Officer Ciamarra is critical to establishing probable cause, and what she said is sharply disputed, Officer Ciamarra is not entitled to summary judgment unless he is entitled to qualified immunity … As discussed above, a police officer is entitled to qualified immunity if it was objectively reasonable for him to believe that his actions did not violate plaintiffs clearly established rights. Harlow v.

Mills v. Steger

179 F. Supp. 2d 637 · District Court, W.D. Virginia · Jan 9, 2002

In determining whether a government official is entitled to qualified immunity, the court must “(1) identify the right allegedly violated, (2) determine whether the constitutional right violated was clearly established at … he was violating the clearly established right.

Loumiet v. United States of America

225 F. Supp. 3d 79 · District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 22, 2016

The court must exercise particular care in discovery matters where a qualified immunity defense has been raised. In Ashcroft v. … Iqbal, the Supreme Court clearly articulated the concerns surrounding discovery in such cases: “The basic thrust of the qualified-immunity doctrine is to free officials from the concerns of litigation, including ‘avoidance

SALKIN v. LABROSSE

District Court, D. New Jersey · Dec 13, 2019

Qualified immunity protects government officials from damages for conduct that does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. Sauers v. … can defeat a qualified immunity defense.”).

Heller v. Bedford Central School District

144 F. Supp. 3d 596 · District Court, S.D. New York · Nov 17, 2015

As discussed above, “[t]he 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 … At the very least, in the absence of any precedent, clearly established or otherwise, providing for a Second Amendment claim under these circumstances, Chief Ryan is entitled to qualified immunity, Pearson, 555 U.S. at 231

Myers v. Becker County

833 F. Supp. 1424 · District Court, D. Minnesota · Oct 12, 1993

Qualified Immunity Under federal law, police officers have immunity against civil actions unless their conduct violates “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known … The issue of qualified immunity is separate from the merits.

Pourny v. Maui Police Dept., County of Maui

127 F. Supp. 2d 1129 · District Court, D. Hawaii · Aug 14, 2000

Law enforcement officials sued under § 1983 are entitled to qualified immunity if (1) the “right” they allegedly violated was not “clearly established” at the time of the violation, or (2) if a reasonable officer would have … Qualified Immunity Bugado also asserts qualified immunity as a defense to the excessive force claim.

Robinson v. TRIPLER ARMY MEDICAL CENTER

683 F. Supp. 2d 1097 · District Court, D. Hawaii · Dec 16, 2009

Qualified Immunity The Ninth Circuit reversed this Court’s determination that Plourde was entitled to qualified immunity and remanded Plaintiffs’ § 1983 claim alleging that Plourde unconstitutionally removed Kewai from Plaintiffs … Constitutional Violation Once it has been established that the defendant is not entitled to qualified immunity, a court may turn to the merits of the case. Saucier, 533 U.S. at 202-06, 121 S.Ct. 2151 .

Kinsey v. City of Opp, Ala.

50 F. Supp. 2d 1232 · District Court, M.D. Alabama · May 19, 1999

Qualified immunity protects “all but the plainly incompetent or those who knowingly violate the law.” Malley v. … This evidences a finding that no clearly established constitutional right was violated. See Dowdell v.

Laurie Ortolano v. P City of Nashua, et al.

2025 DNH 022 · District Court, D. New Hampshire · Feb 25, 2025

Even if Ortolano Had Produced Sufficient Evidence on her Retaliation Claim Against Detective Lombardi, He Would Be Entitled to Qualified Immunity Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, “government officials … Ortolano identifies neither binding authority nor “a robust consensus of persuasive authority” that Detective Lombardi’s conduct violated clearly established law.

Vs Ex Rel. TS v. Muhammad

581 F. Supp. 2d 365 · District Court, E.D. New York · Sep 30, 2008

The claim of qualified immunity on all federal claims Qualified immunity protects government officials from liability for civil damages when "their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … If the case were limited to these facts, the City defendants would seem to have a strong case for qualified immunity under the clearly established and clearly deferential standard of the Second Circuit.

Mann v. Hanil Bank

900 F. Supp. 1077 · District Court, E.D. Wisconsin · Aug 31, 1995

The plaintiffs further argue that they have established irreparable harm, although they need not do so to qualify for post-judgment injunctive relief, and that “under the regimen postulated by defendants, no court could order … As a result, KEB and Industrial Bank need not meet this heightened standard in order to qualify for immunity in this case.

R.W. v. Board of Regents of University System of Georgia

114 F. Supp. 3d 1260 · District Court, N.D. Georgia · Feb 27, 2015

Plaintiff disputes the necessity of proving a separate constitutional violation to abrogate immunity and instead' argues that Eleventh Circuit precedent establishes that a separate constitutional violation is not also required … Florida Bd. of Regents, 528 U.S. 62, 78 , 120 S.Ct. 631 , 145 L.Ed.2d 522 (2000). *1280 As to the first factor establishing Con-' gressional intent to abrogate immunity, the ADA explicitly states that “[a] State shall not

Liff v. Office of the Inspector General for the U.S. Department of Labor

156 F. Supp. 3d 1 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 8, 2016

Qualified Immunity Defendants also move to dismiss on grounds of qualified immunity, which “protects government officials ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established … In pleading qualified immunity, Defendants argue primarily that “Liff has not alleged the deprivation of a clearly established constitutional right” because “the Complaint at best raises a garden-variety tort claim for