Case law

George v. Board of Education

34 F. Supp. 3d 442 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Jul 23, 2014

“The 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 which a reasonable person … Second, was that right “clearly established”? Id. Qualified immunity applies to O.G.’s federal and state constitutional claims. See Sussino v.

Spicer v. Michigan, State of

District Court, E.D. Michigan · Jul 7, 2021

Qualified immunity "'shield[s]' public officials from money-damages liability if 'their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known … "To survive the motion to dismiss on qualified-immunity grounds, [P]laintiff must allege facts that plausibly mak[e] out a claim that the defendant's conduct violated a constitutional right that was clearly established

Morrison v. Board of Trustees of Green Tp.

529 F. Supp. 2d 807 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Nov 29, 2007

“The right to be free from ‘excessively forceful handcuffing’ is a clearly established right for qualified immunity purposes.” Burchett v. Kiefer, 310 F.3d 937, 944 (6th Cir.2002) (citing Kostrzewa v. … Qualified immunity questions involve a two-part analysis: first, whether the facts alleged show the officer's conduct violated a constitutional right; and second, whether the right was clearly established. Saucier v.

Dempsey v. Town of Brighton

749 F. Supp. 1215 · District Court, W.D. New York · Oct 29, 1990

The standard for determining whether qualified immunity applies is now well established. … Even where the law is “clearly established” and the scope of an official’s permissible conduct is “clearly defined,” the qualified immunity defense also protects an official if it was “objectively reasonable” for him at the

Maldonado v. Municipality of Barceloneta

682 F. Supp. 2d 109 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Jan 19, 2010

Seventh, Defendants I contend that the Mayor is entitled to qualified immunity *123 because it is not clearly established that his acts were in violation of the Fourth Amendment. … Qualified Immunity Defendant Mayor Fontanés as well as the co-defendants argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity because plaintiffs have not demonstrated that their actions violated a clearly established constitutional

Ayres v. City of Beaumont

193 F. Supp. 2d 896 · District Court, E.D. Texas · Jul 31, 2001

The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials performing discretionary functions from liability of civil damages as long as their actions do not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights … As such, Chief Bertrand was acting within his discretion as a city official and enjoys qualified immunity from a federal claim.

Scott v. Garcia

370 F. Supp. 2d 1056 · District Court, S.D. California · Jan 4, 2005

The defense 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 which a reasonable … clearly established.

Mlodzinski v. Lewis

731 F. Supp. 2d 157 · District Court, D. New Hampshire · Jul 16, 2010

by virtue of qualified immunity. … They bear the burden of proving qualified immunity, an affirmative defense protecting government officials from liability if they can show that their conduct, while illegal, did not violate “clearly established” constitutional

Schilling v. Swick

868 F. Supp. 904 · District Court, W.D. Michigan · Oct 7, 1994

The qualified immunity doctrine shields government officials performing discretionary functions from civil damages liability, provided their conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights … when their duties require action in areas where clearly established rights are not implicated.

Brandt v. Board of Educ. of City of Chicago

420 F. Supp. 2d 921 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Mar 13, 2006

Qualified Immunity Nevertheless, the individual Defendants assert that the doctrine of qualified immunity protects them from this lawsuit. … Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, “[i]f the law did not put the [public official] on notice that his conduct would be clearly unlawful, summary judgment based on qualified immunity is appropriate.”

Ortiz Medina v. Tirado Delgado

660 F. Supp. 1157 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Apr 13, 1987

Qualified Immunity Defense Defendants claim they are protected by the defense of qualified immunity. … Accordingly, defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity, for we cannot say that at the time of the demotion the law was clearly established that the defendants could require the Chief of the Treasury Division of the

Lawyer v. City of Council Bluffs, Iowa

240 F. Supp. 2d 941 · District Court, S.D. Iowa · Nov 20, 2002

Qualified Immunity Clark and Newby raise the defense of qualified immunity. The Eighth Circuit has just recently again summarized the qualified immunity analysis: ... … A state actor is entitled to qualified immunity when his “ ‘conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’ ” [Sexton v.

Savage v. Judge

644 F. Supp. 2d 550 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 8, 2009

Qualified Immunity Defendants next contend that they are immune from damage claims brought under Section 1983 by reason of qualified immunity. (Doc. … “If the law was clearly established, the immunity defense ordinarily should fail, since a reasonably competent public official should know the law governing his conduct.” Id. at *4, 2005 U.S. Dist.

Denmark v. Lee County

931 F. Supp. 831 · District Court, M.D. Florida · Jul 1, 1996

Defendant Schramm seeks summary judgment on Plaintiff’s claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on the basis of qualified immunity. … This Circuit has adopted a two-pronged analysis for determining objective-reasonableness with regard to a qualified immunity defense. See Courson v.

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.”).

Seaver v. Manduco

178 F. Supp. 2d 30 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jan 4, 2002

Qualified Immunity Are defendants sued in their individual capacities in this case protected from suit for money damages by the doctrine of qualified immunity? … Qualified immunity applies when a government official’s “conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have knowledge.” Harlow v.

Brooks v. Siegler

531 F. Supp. 2d 323 · District Court, D. Connecticut · Jan 25, 2008

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY “[Government officials performing discretionary functions generally are granted a qualified immunity and are ‘shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly … “[T]he next, sequential step is to ask whether the right was clearly established.” Id.

Larue v. Fairman

780 F. Supp. 1190 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Dec 6, 1991

Whether an official is protected by qualified immunity turns upon the objective legal reasonableness of the action, in light of legal rules clearly established at the time the action was taken. … In support of their claim of qualified immunity, defendants contend the following: a) it is not clearly established that plaintiff has a right [to] legal counsel and law materials; b) it is not clearly established that plaintiff

Hampton ex rel. Bowling v. Tinder

732 F. Supp. 43 · District Court, S.D. West Virginia · Apr 6, 1989

The final issue the Court directed the parties to brief concerns qualified immunity. … Qualified immunity is appropriate if the law allegedly violated was not clearly established at the time of the alleged violations.

Sanders ex rel. Ray v. Glanz

138 F. Supp. 3d 1248 · District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · Sep 30, 2015

Glanz also asserts that he is entitled to qualified immunity. In resolving questions of § 1983 qualified immunity (at the summary judgment stage), courts engage in a two-pronged inquiry. Tolan v. … Waide, 534 F.3d 1227, 1242 (10th Cir.2008) (rejecting claim .that the constitutional right was not clearly established and stating that “[t]he Supreme Court and the Tenth Circuit have repeatedly and unequivocally established