Case law

Blumberg v. Gates

144 F. Supp. 2d 1221 · District Court, C.D. California · Jun 13, 2001

Having lost on absolute immunity grounds, the Trevino defendants next sought qualified immunity. See Trevino II, 99 F.3d at 916 . … immunity” conflates the qualified immunity analysis with the underlying merits determination.

Palmer v. BD. OF COM'RS FOR PAYNE COUNTY OKLAHOMA

765 F. Supp. 2d 1289 · District Court, W.D. Oklahoma · Jan 18, 2011

And, because Plaintiff has not established that Defendant Hall violated Plaintiffs clearly established constitutional rights within the two-year statutory period, Defendant Hall is entitled to qualified immunity on Plaintiffs … Defendant Myers is not entitled to qualified immunity.

Getch v. Rosenbach

700 F. Supp. 1365 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Dec 29, 1988

In so doing, Getch misconstrues the meaning of “clearly established rights.” … Conversely, an official’s subjective good faith no longer gives rise to a defense of qualified immunity if the court finds his conduct to be objectively unreasonable in that it violated clearly established law. Davis v.

Coletta v. the City of North Bay Village

962 F. Supp. 1486 · District Court, S.D. Florida · Apr 11, 1997

Qualified Immunity as to Counts II and III The individual defendants assert that they are entitled to qualified immunity from liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 , and that, therefore, Counts II and III should be dismissed as … Therefore, the Court proceeds to determine whether the plaintiff has met his burden of alleging that said activities violated clearly established constitutional law, or were done with the objective intent to harm him.

Lueck v. Wathen

262 F. Supp. 2d 690 · District Court, N.D. Texas · May 19, 2003

Defendants also move for summary judgment on the grounds of Eleventh Amendment and qualified immunity. … Government officials are immune from suit for discretionary acts performed in good faith while acting within the scope of their authority unless their conduct violates a clearly established constitutional right.

Neveu v. City of Fresno

392 F. Supp. 2d 1159 · District Court, E.D. California · Jul 15, 2005

Individuals are not immune under the doctrine of qualified immunity if they violated “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” 6 Harlow v. … “To determine whether qualified immunity is appropriate, a court must identify the specific right allegedly violated and determine whether that right was so clearly established as to alert a reasonable officer to its constitutional

El Ranchito, Inc. v. City of Harvey

207 F. Supp. 2d 814 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jun 26, 2002

To overcome a defense of qualified immunity, the plaintiff must first allege the deprivation of an actual constitutional right, and second, show that the right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation. … In support of their claim of qualified immunity, defendants argue that the law was at least not clearly established that the police defendants could not make a protective sweep of El Ranchito to protect the inspector.

Bogacz v. Lt. Holmes

District Court, N.D. Illinois · May 14, 2024

Qualified immunity Lt. Holmes's argument for qualified immunity turns on the following contentions: (1) all he did was respond was respond to Mr. … Qualified immunity is not a basis for summary judgment when the defense turns on disputed facts. See, e.g., Gupta v.

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

Ling v. Herrod

445 F. Supp. 2d 892 · District Court, W.D. Tennessee · Aug 3, 2006

Qualified Immunity Herrod has asserted the defense of qualified immunity. Unless there is a dispute about whether a defendant committed certain acts, qualified immunity is a question of law to be decided by the court. … Herrod contends, however, that he is entitled to qualified immunity because a reasonable official would not have understood that sending the letters violated Plaintiffs’ procedural due process rights.

Swindell v. NEW YORK STATE DEPT. OF ENVIRON. CON.

371 F. Supp. 2d 172 · District Court, N.D. New York · May 2, 2005

The sole basis for Defendants' motion is that they are entitled to qualified immunity. … Qualified Immunity Roderick, the sole remaining defendant in this action, seeks summary judgment on the claims against him on the basis of qualified immunity.

Rouse v. Nielson

851 F. Supp. 717 · District Court, D. South Carolina · Mar 18, 1994

The Fourth Circuit, recently summarized the law of qualified immunity: Qualified immunity shields a governmental official from liability for civil monetary damages if the officer's "conduct does not violate clearly established … Under the facts of this case, defendant is clearly entitled to qualified immunity. IV.

Schreiber v. Moe

445 F. Supp. 2d 799 · District Court, W.D. Michigan · Aug 10, 2006

Schreiber bears the burden of demonstrating that Officer Moe’s conduct violated a clearly established right and that Officer Moe is not entitled to qualified immunity. Barrett v. … But, even assuming that a violation occurred, Officer Moe would be entitled to qualified immunity because he did not violate any clearly established rights of which a reasonable officer would have known.

Zamecnik v. Indian Prairie School District 204 Board of Education

619 F. Supp. 2d 517 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Dec 21, 2007

WELLS’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Also pending is defendant Wells’s motion for summary judgment based on qualified immunity. … Without attempting to suggest a constitutionally permissible basis for suppressing such speech, Wells contends he is entitled to qualified immunity because no case establishes that a student must be allowed to wear a t-shirt

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.

Doe v. Borough of Barrington

729 F. Supp. 376 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Jan 29, 1990

Defendant Smith did not assert a qualified immunity defense. … Perhaps this contention is defendant’s inartful attempt to assert qualified immunity. The defendant, however, has the burden to prove the defense of qualified immunity. Gomez v.

West v. Congemi

28 F. Supp. 2d 385 · District Court, E.D. Louisiana · Nov 23, 1998

by the defendant was “clearly established” at the time the defendant acted. … The final step in a determination of qualified immunity is whether the constitutional right asserted by the plaintiff to have been violated by the defendant was “clearly established” at the time the defendant acted.

Carpenter v. City of New York

984 F. Supp. 2d 255 · District Court, S.D. New York · Nov 27, 2013

That an individual officer committed a constitutional violation is not sufficient, however, to establish liability under § 1983 because these officers are further protected by the doctrine of qualified immunity. … As the Supreme Court recently reiterated, “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

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