Case law

Strouss v. Michigan Department of Corrections

75 F. Supp. 2d 711 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Nov 29, 1999

Metropolitan Sewer Dist., 922 F.2d 332 (1990): The doctrine of qualified immunity affords protection against individual liability for civil damages to officials “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established … To determine whether a right was “clearly established” for purposes of qualified immunity, the Sixth Circuit has directed lower courts to “look first to decisions of the Supreme Court, then to decisions of [the circuit] court

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

Virginians Against a Corrupt Congress v. Moran

805 F. Supp. 75 · District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 2, 1992

The defendant is entitled to qualified immunity. There was no clearly established constitutional right violated by defendant at the time of the disputed actions. Harlow v. … Reading the qualified immunity doctrine in light of the Speech or Debate clause, and the political environment in which this case was brought, I also hold that defendant is entitled to qualified immunity from responding to

Johnson v. Commissioner of Correctional Services

699 F. Supp. 1071 · District Court, S.D. New York · Nov 21, 1988

The defense 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 … Therefore, the doctrine of qualified immunity bars plaintiff’s claims.

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

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.

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

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.

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

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

Butler Ex Rel. Butler v. Rio Rancho Public School Board of Education

245 F. Supp. 2d 1203 · District Court, D. New Mexico · Jul 22, 2002

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY Officer Apgar has also raised the affirmative defense of qualified immunity. … Qualified immunity is an affirmative defense designed to shield government officials who perform discretionary functions from individual liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 unless their conduct violates clearly established statutory

Akers v. Watts

740 F. Supp. 2d 83 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 24, 2010

Qualified Immunity “[Government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … Plaintiff cannot establish that the federal defendants violated a right protected by the First, Fourth, Fifth or Sixth Amendment to United States Constitution, and, therefore, these defendants are entitled to qualified immunity

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.

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.

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.”

Aleotti v. Baars

896 F. Supp. 1 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 20, 1995

Sergeant Hickey and Captain Hennessey are shielded from liability by qualified immunity. … Federal officials, such as Special Agent Trainor, are entitled to qualified immunity for civil damage claims for constitutional and statutory violations asserted against them unless their conduct violates "clearly established

Field v. Kirton

856 F. Supp. 88 · District Court, D. Connecticut · Jun 21, 1994

Generally, government officials performing discretionary functions are accorded qualified immunity and thereby shielded from civil damages liability insofar as they do not “violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … To reiterate, the violation of a clearly established state-law right will not defeat an assertion of qualified immunity. See Doe v. DCYS, 911 F.2d at 869 (quoting Robison v.