Case law

Jones v. City of Burkburnett

173 F. Supp. 2d 583 · District Court, N.D. Texas · Apr 23, 2001

However, the facts detailed above could easily lead a jury to conclude that the Defendants violated clearly established constitutional rights and that their conduct was objectively unreasonable in light of the clearly established … Therefore, the Motion to Dismiss on Grounds of Qualified Immunity is DENIED.

Dallio v. Hebert

678 F. Supp. 2d 35 · District Court, N.D. New York · Jul 28, 2009

“Once qualified immunity is pleaded, plaintiffs complaint will be dismissed unless defendant’s alleged conduct, when committed, violated ‘clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … Wolff, 985 F.2d 662, 666 (2d Cir.1993) (qualified immunity protects defendants "even where the rights were clearly established, if it was objectively reasonable for defendants to believe that their acts did not violate those

Feist v. Simonson

36 F. Supp. 2d 1136 · District Court, D. Minnesota · Feb 8, 1999

Qualified Immunity Defendants also move for summary judgment based on a claim of qualified immunity. Public officials performing discretionary functions enjoy a qualified immunity. See Harlow v. … Only then should a court turn to the key qualified immunity inquiry — analysis of whether the right allegedly violated was clearly established at the time of the events in question.

Higgins v. BOROUGH OF TAYLOR

551 F. Supp. 2d 370 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 11, 2008

In any case, qualified immunity for police officers “absolves defendants if reasonable officers could have believed their conduct was lawful ‘in light of clearly established law and the information the searching officers … Determining whether qualified immunity applies is a two “step process:” “[fjirst, we must determine whether the defendants violated ‘clearly established’ rights ...

United States Ex Rel. Casanova v. Fitzpatrick

214 F. Supp. 425 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jan 16, 1963

It would simply qualify them as eligible for inclusion on the list. … Following the effective date of the Headquarters Agreement, a procedure was established to implement the required tri-partite consent under section 15(2) with respect to those qualified thereunder.

Carcamo-Lopez v. Does 1 through 20

865 F. Supp. 2d 736 · District Court, W.D. Texas · Sep 2, 2011

Qualified immunity protects officials from suits “for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … Because reckless conduct in unforeseen circumstances such as those Montalvo faced cannot qualify as a violation of an individual’s Fifth Amendment substantive due process rights, much less a violation of clearly established

Holt Bonding Co., Inc. v. Nichols

988 F. Supp. 1232 · District Court, W.D. Arkansas · Sep 18, 1997

“[P]ublic officials are entitled to qualified immunity when their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Grantham v. … Qualified immunity shields Nichols from' liability unless he violated HBCI’s clearly established rights and reasonably should have known he was doing so.

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

Gonzalez v. Lusardi

930 F. Supp. 2d 840 · District Court, E.D. Kentucky · Mar 12, 2013

be determined before trial whether the defendant did acts that violate clearly established rights. … Although the officers are entitled to qualified official immunity under Yanero v.

Zainc v. City of Waterbury

603 F. Supp. 2d 368 · District Court, D. Connecticut · Mar 23, 2009

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY 11 “[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 … “[The next, sequential step is to ask whether the right was clearly established.]” Id.

Brammer-Hoelter v. Twin Peaks Charter Academy

575 F. Supp. 2d 1219 · District Court, D. Colorado · Aug 25, 2008

Marlatt — Qualified Immunity. … Marlatt is “clearly established.”

Verney v. Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission

903 F. Supp. 826 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 26, 1995

Qualified Immunity The individual Defendants also argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity for any actions they took with respect to Plaintiffs discharge. 11 The test for qualified immunity was announced by the … We have already determined that Plaintiff did not have a “clearly established constitutional right” in employment with the Commission.

Goudeau v. East Baton Rouge Parish School Board

951 F. Supp. 2d 874 · District Court, M.D. Louisiana · Jul 31, 2012

Defendants contend they are entitled to qualified immunity on all claims. … of clearly established constitutional law.” 55 “[T]he qualified immunity standard ‘gives ample room for mistaken judgments’ by protecting ‘all but the plainly incompetent or those who knowingly violate the law.’ ” 56 *887

Mathis v. Parks

741 F. Supp. 567 · District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Jun 25, 1990

immunity. … Defendants’ Parks’ and Webb’s motion for dismissal on the basis of qualified immunity should be DENIED; (4).

Burns v. Alexander

776 F. Supp. 2d 57 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 4, 2011

In order for a right to be “clearly established” for purposes of qualified immunity, its contours must be “sufficiently clear” to enable an objectively reasonable official to understand that what he or she is doing violates … Having alleged a violation of her procedural due process rights, Burns can overcome Hart’s defense of qualified immunity “only by showing that those rights were clearly established at the time of the conduct at issue.”

Coleman v. Special School District No. 1

959 F. Supp. 1112 · District Court, D. Minnesota · Mar 26, 1997

In order for a right to be clearly established, for purposes of determining whether qualified immunity applies, “[t]he contours of the right must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what … Thus, if the law as related to the relevant facts is not clearly established and if a reasonable official could have believed the alleged conduct was lawful, qualified immunity applies. *1122 Based on the record before it

Walker v. Briley

140 F. Supp. 2d 1249 · District Court, N.D. Alabama · Apr 18, 2001

Qualified immunity generally shields government officials from individual liability under section 1983, provided that “their conduct violates no ‘clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … to qualified immunity under that version of the facts.

Fugate v. Unified Government of Wyandotte County/Kansas City

161 F. Supp. 2d 1261 · District Court, D. Kansas · Aug 8, 2001

Even if the complaint implies that Boone and Bock filed the application for the arrest warrant for “Rodrick Fu-gate,” such an action is clearly protected by absolute prosecutorial immunity. … The KTCA is an “open-ended” act; liability is the rule while immunity is the exception; further, defendants bear the burden of establishing immunity under section 75-6104. Kan. State Bk. v. Specialized Transp.

Edmundson v. Keesler

904 F. Supp. 478 · District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Nov 2, 1995

If a plaintiff has alleged a clearly established right, summary judgment is improper as long as there remains any genuine issue of material fact regarding the actual conduct of the defendants. Id. at 359-60 . … In deciding whether an official is entitled to qualified immunity, the court must (1) identify the specific constitutional right allegedly violated, (2) determine whether that right was clearly established at the time of

Trujillo v. Board of Educ. of Albuquerque Public Schools

470 F. Supp. 2d 1270 · District Court, D. New Mexico · Sep 2, 2005

a constitutional violation, Mayerstein was nevertheless entitled to qualified immunity on this basis because the law is not clearly established whether the underlying EEOC charge must be based on a matter of public concern … The law is clearly established that it is unlawful to retaliate against someone for exercising his First Amendment rights and, thus, Mayerstein is not entitled to qualified immunity. See Patrick v.