Case law

Wilson v. Johnson

999 F. Supp. 394 · District Court, W.D. New York · Feb 17, 1998

Qualified Immunity. Defendants also move for summary judgment on the ground of 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 [or her] acts did not violate those rights.”

Schwartz v. Booker

829 F. Supp. 2d 1080 · District Court, D. Colorado · Dec 6, 2011

Clearly Established Because Defendants have asserted qualified immunity, Plaintiffs are entitled to proceed in this action only if the constitutional violation alleged was clearly established at the time of the relevant events … Because Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint contains sufficient allegations to state a claim for a violation of Chandler’s clearly established constitutional rights, Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity.

Patrick v. City of Chicago

662 F. Supp. 2d 1039 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Sep 30, 2009

Qualified immunity should be granted when the officials’ conduct does not violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. … The dispute over qualified immunity turns on whether the right to privacy that Defendants are alleged to have violated was clearly established at the time of Plaintiffs alleged injury.

Howe v. Bank for International Settlements

194 F. Supp. 2d 6 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Mar 26, 2002

This immunity shields “govern *22 ment officials performing discretionary-functions ... from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of … Moreover, even if the plaintiff could maintain an individual-capacity suit for damages, Greenspan and McDonough would be protected by their qualified immunity, “as their conduct [on the BIS board] d[id] not violate any clearly

Borrell v. Bloomsburg University

63 F. Supp. 3d 418 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 21, 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 … Richer did not seek summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity, nor did he ' oppose Borrell’s motion on qualified immunity grounds.

Sinclair v. City of Grandview

973 F. Supp. 2d 1234 · District Court, E.D. Washington · Sep 26, 2013

The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials, including police officers, from liability when their conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … Even where an officer’s actions amount to a violation of the Fourth Amendment, the officer will be entitled to qualified immunity if the right was not clearly established at the time of the injury.

Geist v. Ammary

40 F. Supp. 3d 467 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 22, 2014

Qualified immunity is intended to shield government *483 officials performing discretionary functions, including police officers, “from liability from civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established … If one part of the analysis is met, then qualified immunity may be available. See id. at 243-44 , 129 S.Ct. 808 (finding that qualified immunity available because no violation of clearly established law). .

Garcia v. Williams

704 F. Supp. 984 · District Court, N.D. California · Sep 1, 1988

In order for the qualified immunity to apply in any context, the official’s conduct must be objectively reasonable and not in violation of clearly established law. Harlow v. … If the plaintiff does establish such intent, there can be no qualified immunity.” Id. at 1051 n. 29.

Feathers v. Aey

196 F. Supp. 2d 530 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Mar 27, 2002

State actors lose this immunity when they violate clearly established constitutional rights of which a reasonable person should have known. … Harlow, 457 U.S. at 818 , 102 S.Ct. 2727 (holding that *537 qualified immunity shields state actors only “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable

Kapfhammer v. Boyd

5 F. Supp. 2d 689 · District Court, E.D. Wisconsin · May 19, 1998

The second is that he is entitled to qualified immunity. … Boyd also argues that he is entitled to qualified immunity.

Rollins v. City of Albert Lea

79 F. Supp. 3d 946 · District Court, D. Minnesota · Dec 17, 2014

Defendant contends that its officials are entitled to qualified immunity because it was not clearly established by existing precedential authority that merely viewing an individual’s driver’s record may violate the DPPA. … Accordingly, at this stage of the proceedings — where Plaintiff has adequately alleged the violation of a clearly established statutory right — Ramsey County is not entitled to qualified immunity on Plaintiffs DPPA claims

Leyland v. Edwards

District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 14, 2011

IL Qualified Immunity Even if Leyland's Bivens claim was not barred due to "special factors," defendant still has qualified immunity, shielding him from this lawsuit. … Bryant, 502 U.S. 224, 227 (1991) (per curiam). 5  Here, the defendant clearly enjoys qualified immunity because he correctly concluded that an unregistered firearm is

Stillwell v. Lawrence

766 F. Supp. 2d 1202 · District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · Jan 21, 2011

Lawrence argues that he is entitled to qualified immunity because plaintiff has not cited any authority showing that his right to notice of a reinstatement policy at the time of his removal was clearly established as a matter … The Court also notes that Lawrence has raised a defense of qualified immunity and it is plaintiffs burden, not the Court’s, to show that Lawrence violated plaintiffs clearly established rights.

Lynch v. City of Philadelphia

166 F. Supp. 2d 224 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 29, 2001

Public officials performing discretionary functions are shielded from personal liability under the doctrine of qualified immunity so long as their conduct does not violate clearly established constitutional rights of which … The main issue regarding the Defendant’s claim is whether the right allegedly violated was clearly established. “ ‘Clearly established’ for purposes of qualified immunity means that [t]he contours of the right must be sufficiently

Price v. City of Fayetteville

22 F. Supp. 3d 551 · District Court, E.D. North Carolina · May 21, 2014

In their motion for judgment on the pleadings, defendants argue that the doctrine of qualified immunity bars the individual capacity claims against defendant Sessoms. … Government officials are entitled to qualified immunity from civil damages so long as “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”

Benford v. American Broadcasting Companies, Inc.

502 F. Supp. 1148 · District Court, D. Maryland · Nov 14, 1980

The Butz Court utilized the definition of qualified immunity that the Court applied to state officials in Scheuer . … In his dissenting opinion in McSurley , Judge Wilkey clearly assumed that absent the absolute protection of the Speech or Debate Clause the legislative defendants would have access to qualified official immunity.

González-Droz v. González-Colón

717 F. Supp. 2d 196 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Jun 15, 2010

Saxner, 474 U.S. 193, 206 , 106 S.Ct. 496 , 88 L.Ed.2d 507 (1985) (finding that members of a federal prison’s Discipline Committee were entitled to qualified, and not absolute, immunity because the procedural safeguards in … Insofar as this would impinge on the members of the Board’s legislative capacity, it is clearly barred by the doctrine of legislative immunity. See Rowland, 494 F.3d at 88 .

Myers v. Medical Center of Delaware, Inc.

86 F. Supp. 2d 389 · District Court, D. Delaware · Jan 19, 2000

Therefore, they enjoy qualified immunity from suit. … Qualified immunity.

DeLoreto v. Ment

944 F. Supp. 1023 · District Court, D. Connecticut · Aug 2, 1996

In a section 1983 action, qualified immunity shields an official sued in his individual capacity “from liability for civil damages insofar as [his] conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … Defendants assert that Plaintiffs have failed to allege the violation of any clearly established law and, therefore, Defendants’ acts are protected by the doctrine of qualified immunity. We disagree.

Woods v. Lemonds

804 F. Supp. 1106 · District Court, E.D. Missouri · Sep 28, 1992

Defendant claims he is immune from any liability in this case under the doctrine of qualified immunity. The doctrine of qualified immunity for a police officer who obtains a search warrant was established in Malley v. … immunity.