Case law

Daryl v. Boyd

881 F. Supp. 171 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 28, 1995

Boyd has chosen to counter Cook’s, claims here by arguing that he is entitled to qualified immunity. … Though qualified immunity is meant to protect “all but the plainly incompetent or those who knowingly violate the law,” Malley v.

Deadwiley v. New York State Office of Children & Family Services

97 F. Supp. 3d 110 · District Court, E.D. New York · Mar 31, 2015

Moreover, Plaintiff was the only “qualified” applicant who was not placed on any “certified list.” Id. … “Once challenged, the burden of establishing jurisdiction rests with the party asserting that it exists.

Clark v. District of Columbia

241 F. Supp. 3d 24 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 14, 2017

“Qualified immunity shields federal and state officials from money damages unless a plaintiff alleges facts showing (1) that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was ‘clearly … Defendants argue that Defendant Manley is entitled to qualified immunity on Plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment claim because Plaintiff failed to plead that Defendant Manley violated a “clearly established” right at the time of

Doe v. Division of Youth and Family Services

148 F. Supp. 2d 462 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Jun 25, 2001

“The doctrine of qualified immunity ‘hold[s] that government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established … However, far from being clearly established, the plaintiffs’ Rehabilitation Act claim is somewhat novel.

Turner v. Sheriff of Marion County

94 F. Supp. 2d 966 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Mar 1, 2000

We also assumed that the defendants moved for qualified immunity and summary judgment on the plaintiffs’ knock and announce claims. 1. Qualified immunity for unlawful entry claims denied. … Qualified immunity is not only a defense to the substance of a plaintiff’s claims but an immunity from the litigation.

Dixon v. Georgia Department of PubLic Safety

135 F. Supp. 3d 1362 · District Court, S.D. Georgia · Sep 22, 2015

See Dkt No. 1-1, ¶ 72. ■ Plaintiffs must also show that the law clearly established the rights at issue at the time .of the alleged misconduct in order to divest Williford of the protection of qualified immunity. … qualified immunity at this stage.

Riedinger v. D'AMICANTINO

974 F. Supp. 322 · District Court, S.D. New York · Aug 19, 1997

Qualified immunity is an affirmative defense that shields defendant officials in their individual capacities “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … When the law is clearly established, a defendant cannot claim qualified immunity, because “a reasonably competent public official should know the law governing his conduct.”

Kwoun v. Southeast Missouri Professional Standards Review Organization

632 F. Supp. 1091 · District Court, E.D. Missouri · Mar 27, 1986

However, a careful review of the legislative history of the PSRO Amendment clearly indicates that some form of immunity is both necessary and desirable. … Under this ruling officers cannot avoid liability under the rule of qualified immunity on the grounds that the act of applying for an arrest warrant is per se objectively reasonable where the officer believes that the facts

Cyr v. Perry

301 F. Supp. 2d 527 · District Court, E.D. Virginia · Feb 3, 2004

Accordingly, when the applications were forwarded to Timothy McCurdy, the Selecting Official, McCurdy was aware that HRD had concluded that plaintiff was among the best qualified applicants. … principle is that a waiver of sovereign immunity may not be implied; nor can “[a] statute’s legislative history ... supply a waiver that does not appear clearly in any statutory *532 text.”

Ashokkumar v. Elbaum

932 F. Supp. 2d 996 · District Court, D. Nebraska · Mar 15, 2013

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 … were clearly established at the time it was taken.

Thomas v. Gscheidle

District Court, D. New Hampshire · May 26, 1999

Qualified Immunity "Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, public officials 'generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … In a qualified immunity analysis, the right affected must be considered at an appropriate level of generality because "the focus must be upon the particular conduct engaged in by (or attributed to) the defendants; 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 .

Dartland v. Metropolitan Dade County

681 F. Supp. 1539 · District Court, S.D. Florida · Mar 10, 1988

Qualified Immunity Pereira must show that at the time he dismissed Dartland, his “conduct did not violate clearly established ... constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. … In determining whether the law was clearly established, a court should be careful not to test the rule of law at such a level of generality as to render unavailable the defense of qualified immunity. Anderson v.

Collins v. Knox County

569 F. Supp. 2d 269 · District Court, D. Maine · Aug 1, 2008

The general rule of qualified immunity, set out in Harlow v. … In Cookish the court held that officials at the prison were entitled to qualified immunity because it was not clearly established what constituted an emergency. Id. at 448 n. 10.

United States v. Amos

733 F. Supp. 2d 907 · District Court, E.D. Tennessee · Aug 6, 2010

If the law violated meets this standard (i.e., was clearly established such that no reasonable officer would have violated it), a defendant officer is not entitled to qualified immunity. Id. … clearly established law and widely accepted interpretations of Belton for qualified immunity purposes, (2) the qualified immunity analysis/inquiry and the Leon good faith analysis/inquiry are one and the same, and (3) per

Saidi v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority

928 F. Supp. 21 · District Court, District of Columbia · May 30, 1996

In order to successfully establish a defense of qualified immunity to a charge of false arrest, the WMATA police must show probable cause existed for the arrest of the plaintiff. Gabrou, 462 A.2d at 1104 ; McCarthy v. … In order to be subject to § 1983 liability, an “officer must clearly violate a clearly established right.” District of Columbia v. Evans, 644 A.2d 1008, 1015 (D.C.1994).

Norton v. City of South Portland

831 F. Supp. 2d 340 · District Court, D. Maine · Dec 9, 2011

Rather, this case is readily resolved on the “clearly established” prong of the qualified immunity analysis. … under clearly established law.”

Fleming v. LeFevere

423 F. Supp. 2d 1064 · District Court, C.D. California · Jan 17, 2006

LeFevere Violated Plaintiff’s Constitutional Rights, He Is Entitled To Qualified Immunity. Defendant Dr. … LeFevere also asserts that he is protected by qualified immunity because he acted within the established law at the time. Defendant Dr.

Dopp v. Honaker

District Court, W.D. Oklahoma · Sep 30, 2019

insufficient to establish a constitutional violation.”). … Mata, 427 F.3d at 761 (granting qualified immunity where “[n]o reasonable jury could conclude” that the prison nurse acted with deliberate indifference to the prisoner’s medical needs).

Potter v. Murray City

585 F. Supp. 1126 · District Court, D. Utah · Apr 27, 1984

Do the uncontroverted facts establish a qualified immunity from liability for monetary damages in favor of the defendant Chief of Police and the City’s Civil Service Commission because of a good faith reliance upon the constitutionality … The State of Utah beyond the declaration of policy and public interest implicit in the prohibition of polygamy under criminal sanction, has established a vast and convoluted network of other laws clearly establishing its