Case law

Meding v. Hurd

607 F. Supp. 1088 · District Court, D. Delaware · Apr 19, 1985

Qualified Immunity The individual defendants have raised an affirmative defense of qualified immunity and claim that they are entitled to judgment as a matter of law. … The task of shaping the issue of qualified immunity for trial is left to the parties. 6.

Connelly v. University of Vermont & State Agricultural College

244 F. Supp. 156 · District Court, D. Vermont · Jul 14, 1965

No claim of immunity as a governmental corporation was involved. … The question of whether a public corporation is immune from suit in a federal court in a diversity case under the Eleventh Amendment was not involved in that case.

McHenry v. Pennsylvania State System of Higher Education

50 F. Supp. 2d 401 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · May 11, 1999

The Supreme Court has explained what it means by clearly established law for the purpose of qualified immunity: The contours of the right must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand what he is doing … If the actions of the government official, as alleged by the plaintiff, do not even rise to a level of a-constitutional violation, then that official is clearly entitled to qualified immunity.

Ruscoe v. Housing Authority of City of New Britain

259 F. Supp. 2d 160 · District Court, D. Connecticut · Mar 4, 2003

Qualified Immunity Defendant Vayer relies on the affirmative defense of qualified immunity to argue that Ruscoe’s First and Fourteenth Amendment claims against him must be dismissed. … As the Second Circuit observed in Danahy , “qualified immunity protects government officials from liability for civil damages if the challenged action ‘does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights

Newsome v. Erwin

137 F. Supp. 2d 934 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Sep 1, 2000

To overcome Erwin’s qualified immunity defense, Newsome must allege facts establishing: (1) that Erwin violated a clearly established constitutional right; and (2) that a reasonable official would have known that his or her … He also has alleged facts that could defeat Erwin’s qualified immunity defense.

BYTHER EX REL. BYTHER v. City of Mobile

398 F. Supp. 2d 1222 · District Court, S.D. Alabama · Nov 9, 2005

“Qualified immunity protects government officials performing discretionary functions from civil trials ... and from liability if their conduct violates no clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a … In considering the merits of a qualified immunity defense in excessive force cases, courts previously considered whether the right was clearly established and, if so, whether, in light of such clearly established law, a reasonable

Hill v. Government of the Commonwealth

1 N. Mar. I. Commw. 981 · District Court, Northern Mariana Islands · May 16, 1984

The Court, however, held that Guerrero could claim only a qualified immunity as to the interference with contract claim; Guerrero's motion for summary judgment against Hill _on the immunity defense was denied. … As noted in the prior decision, the Supreme Court in Harlow eliminated the subjective prong of the two-prong qualified immunity test established in Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232 , 94 S.Ct. 1683 , 40 L.Ed.2d 90 (1974).

Magilton v. Tocco

379 F. Supp. 2d 495 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jul 25, 2005

And defendants’ motion for qualified immunity can be and is denied. … All Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment on the Ground of Qualified Immunity is Denied The individual Defendants move in the alternative for summary judgment on the ground of qualified immunity.

Newell v. City of Salina

276 F. Supp. 2d 1148 · District Court, D. Kansas · Jul 29, 2003

Qualified Immunity Defendant next alleges that the officers are entitled to qualified immunity because their actions, even if not objectively reasonable, were not in violation of clearly established law. … Because the reasonableness inquiry overlaps with the qualified immunity analysis, “a qualified immunity defense [is] of less value when raised in defense of an excessive force claim.” Wilson v.

Posthumus v. Board of Education of the Mona Shores Public Schools

380 F. Supp. 2d 891 · District Court, W.D. Michigan · Jan 27, 2005

The Court finds it unnecessary to address all of Defendants’ arguments because it concludes that Posthumus’ claims fail at the preliminary stage of the qualified immunity analysis. 1 *897 “Qualified immunity is an affirmative … Meade, 76 F.3d 97, 100 (6th Cir.1996) (noting that a court reaches the issue of whether the alleged right was clearly established only if it first concludes that the plaintiff has established a violation of a constitutional

Bauchman ex rel. Bauchman v. West High School

900 F. Supp. 254 · District Court, D. Utah · Sep 13, 1995

Qualified Immunity. Defendants including Torgerson claim that they should be held to be immune under the doctrine of qualified immunity. … Public employees are entitled to qualified immunity “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v.

Estate of Heenan ex rel. Heenan v. City of Madison

111 F. Supp. 3d 929 · District Court, W.D. Wisconsin · Jun 1, 2015

a grant of qualified immunity before trial. … See Sallenger, 473 F.3d at 742 (reversing grant of qualified immunity because “[viewing the' facts in the light most favorable to the plaintiff,” the right to be free from excessive force was clearly established); Estate

Villars v. Kubiatowski

45 F. Supp. 3d 791 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · May 5, 2014

Bender, 600 F.3d 770, 779 (7th Cir.2010) (noting that a constitutional right is clearly established, and thus qualified immunity is unavailable, when its contours are “sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand … immunity.

McSorley v. Richmond

242 F. Supp. 2d 24 · District Court, D. Maine · Dec 31, 2002

Defendant Thomas Richmond bases his motion for summary judgment on the Par-ratt-Hudson doctrine and the doctrine of qualified immunity. … This question could be addressed as an aspect of the third qualified immunity element, or as a more basic element of a proper § 1983 claim.

Warren v. Marcus

78 F. Supp. 3d 1228 · District Court, N.D. California · Jan 29, 2015

Qualified Immunity Defendant also moves for summary judgment on Plaintiffs wrongful arrest claim on the grounds that he is entitled to qualified immunity. … 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

Tejada-Batista v. Fuentes Agostini

258 F. Supp. 2d 18 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Apr 14, 2003

His opposition to judgment as a matter of law is grounded on the same arguments raised at trial on the qualified immunity and whistleblowing issues. … Issues of liability under the First Amendment and qualified immunity have been addressed at length. See, e.g., Tejada v. Fuentes Agostini, 87 F.Supp.2d 72 (D.P.R.2000).

Allen v. Board of Com'rs of County of Wyandotte

773 F. Supp. 1442 · District Court, D. Kansas · Aug 2, 1991

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY In the alternative, the defendants contend that they are entitled to qualified immunity. … As noted above, the threshold question in determining whether an official is entitled to qualified immunity is the objective reasonableness of his or her conduct in light of the legal rules that were clearly established at

Liberty and Prosperity 1776, Inc. v. Corzine

720 F. Supp. 2d 622 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Jun 24, 2010

Having found such an allegation of a deprivation, the Court must address “whether the right that was [allegedly] violated was clearly established, or, in other words, whether it would be clear to a reasonable officer that … Apart from the question of the scope of qualified immunity in any given case, a separate question is whether a given official is entitled to qualified immunity at all.

Auleta v. LaFrance

233 F. Supp. 2d 396 · District Court, N.D. New York · Nov 20, 2002

Qualified Immunity “Qualified immunity shields public officials from liability for civil damages if their actions were objectively reasonable, as evaluated in the context of legal rules that were ‘clearly established’ at … The qualified immunity defense is available when “(a) the defendant’s action did not violate clearly established law, or (b) it was objectively reasonable for the defendant to believe that his action did not violate such

Fonte v. Collins

713 F. Supp. 511 · District Court, D. Maine · May 16, 1989

An officer’s qualified immunity is pierced only if there clearly was no probable cause at the time the arrest was made. Id. at 5 . … Accordingly, under the objective test established in Harlow v. Fitzgerald, Defendants may not avail themselves of qualified immunity from liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 .