Case law

Hardeman v. Clark

593 F. Supp. 1285 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 26, 1984

Additionally, the government asserts that the defendant Turner is protected from liability by a qualified immunity. However, at this stage of the proceedings, these arguments must be rejected. … The government also states that Maurice Turner is protected from liability by a qualified immunity. In Harlow v.

Dolihite Ex Rel. Dolihite v. Videon

847 F. Supp. 918 · District Court, M.D. Alabama · Mar 21, 1994

Because defendants deny that they violated any of David Dolihite’s clearly established rights, the burden now shifts to plaintiffs to show that the legal norms allegedly violated by defendants were clearly established at … Qualified immunity purports to insure that government officials are held personally liable only for violations of clearly established law.

Nerswick v. CSX Transportation, Inc.

692 F. Supp. 2d 866 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Feb 19, 2010

Entitlement to qualified immunity Qualified immunity protects government officials performing discretionary functions “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … Assuming the qualified immunity defense is available to these defendants as private actors, they are entitled to qualified immunity on the ground that the first prong of the qualified immunity analysis must be resolved in

Wenzel v. Bankhead

351 F. Supp. 2d 1316 · District Court, N.D. Florida · Dec 14, 2004

Bankhead invokes the doctrine of qualified immunity, which protects public officials from personal liability unless they violate clearly established law. … The doctrine of qualified immunity, with its insistence, on “clearly established” law as a prerequisite to personal liability *1326 of public officials, is designed for cases of precisely this type.

Gill v. Kovach

729 F. Supp. 2d 925 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Jul 27, 2010

Qualified immunity is an affirmative defense that protects government officials performing discretionary functions from civil suits if “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights … Metiva, 31 F.3d 375, 387 (6th Cir.1994), the Court cannot determine, as a matter of law, that qualified immunity does not attach.

Casanova v. City of Brookshire

119 F. Supp. 2d 639 · District Court, S.D. Texas · Sep 7, 2000

A defendant “is entitled to qualified immunity unless he violated a constitutional right that was clearly established at the time of his conduct.” Blackwell, 34 F.3d at 302-03 ; see Harper v. … In considering a claim of qualified immunity, the court must make a two-step inquiry: First, the court must determine whether the plaintiff has alleged a violation of a clearly established constitutional right.

Weaver v. Hanna

122 F. Supp. 2d 1 · District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 15, 2000

establish probable cause.”) … Officers making a lawful Terry stop, like those making a lawful arrest, are entitled to qualified immunity.

MIRACLE BY MIRACLE v. Spooner

978 F. Supp. 1161 · District Court, N.D. Georgia · Sep 26, 1997

have known that his acts violated clearly established statutory or constitutional rights at the time the defendant acted. … It has been clearly established since at least 1987, when the Eleventh Circuit decided Taylor v.

Bunker v. City of Olathe, Kan.

97 F. Supp. 2d 1241 · District Court, D. Kansas · May 31, 2000

the doctrine of qualified immunity. … Qualified immunity shields an individual government official performing discretionary functions from liability for civil damages insofar as his or her conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional

Bannister v. Ponte

609 F. Supp. 920 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · May 30, 1985

The defendants also argue that they are entitled to qualified good faith immunity. See Procunier v. Navarette, 434 U.S. 555, 561 , 98 S.Ct. 855, 859 , 55 L.Ed.2d 24 (1978); Harlow v. … Johnson, 690 F.2d 1098, 1109 (4th Cir.1982) (a prison disciplinary board qualifies for absolute immunity only where the action complained of is of a judicial character).

Jacobs v. Village of Ottawa Hills

111 F. Supp. 2d 904 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Feb 25, 2000

Qualified Immunity Officers Miller and Knallay assert that they are entitled to qualified immunity on the basis that they violated no clearly established constitutional right of which they were or reasonably should have been … Accordingly, these officers, also like the officer in that case, cannot claim qualified immunity “because [they] failed to follow clearly established constitutional law of which they should have known.” 2.

Rogers v. Mount Union Borough Ex Rel. Zook

816 F. Supp. 308 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 3, 1993

Officials exercising discretionary powers are “shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would … Defendants, then, may not rely on qualified immunity to shield them from plaintiffs title VII claim. 6 IX Defendants argue that the Borough of Mount Union itself is immune from suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 .

Cade v. County of Bladen

District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Feb 11, 2020

In proving different treatment of similarly situated employees in the disciplinary context, “[t]he similarity between comparators and the seriousness of their respective offenses must be clearly established in … Walls, 347 N.C. 97, 104 (1997) (“Under the doctrine of governmental immunity, a county is immune from suit for the negligence of its employees in the exercise of governmental functions absent waiver of immunity.”).

Hancock v. City of Greenwood

942 F. Supp. 2d 624 · District Court, N.D. Mississippi · May 1, 2013

Qualified immunity shields a governmental official from civil liability for damages based upon the performance of discretionary functions if the official’s acts did not violate clearly established constitutional or statutory … If the plaintiff fails to state a constitutional claim or if the defendant’s conduct was objectively reasonable under clearly established law, then the governmental official is entitled to qualified immunity. Id.

Wohl v. City of Hollywood

915 F. Supp. 339 · District Court, S.D. Florida · Dec 13, 1995

Qualified immunity protects government officials performing discretionary functions from liability in their individual capacities “if their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of … In addressing Ward’s defense of qualified immunity, the Court applies the following two-step analysis utilized by the Eleventh Circuit: 1.

De La Cruz Andreu v. Inclan

671 F. Supp. 109 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Aug 17, 1987

Qualified Immunity In actions brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 , a defense of qualified immunity from liability for damages is available to state executive officers performing discretionary functions, “insofar as their conduct … does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”

John Doe v. Roe

295 F. Supp. 3d 664 · District Court, E.D. Virginia · Jan 31, 2018

) that she is entitled to qualified immunity as her report was made in good faith. … Consequently, Roe is not entitled to qualified immunity at this time.

Stafford v. Goff

609 F. Supp. 820 · District Court, D. Colorado · May 25, 1985

(Defendant who otherwise passes the Harlow qualified immunity test regarding clearly settled constitutional law does not lose qualified immunity for violating clearly settled state law.) … Therefore, Goff and Arbuthnot are protected by qualified immunity. The alleged violation of a state statute does not abrogate this immunity. Davis .

Traudt v. Roberts, et al.

2013 DNH 094 · District Court, D. New Hampshire · Jul 15, 2013

Instead, “the relevant, dispositive inquiry in determining whether a right is clearly established” for purposes of qualified immunity “is whether it would be clear to a reasonable officer that his conduct was unlawful … C t . 2088, 2093 (2012) (recognizing officer’s qualified immunity against such a claim since it is not yet “clearly established that an arrest supported by probable cause could violate the First Amendment”); Holland v .

Breen v. Salem, NH

District Court, D. New Hampshire · Sep 25, 1996

The qualified immunity analysis in this circuit is two-pronged: (1) "the court must establish whether the constitutional right asserted by the plaintiff was 'clearly established' at the time of the alleged … So, Breen's Fourth Amendment rights, though clearly established, were not violated.