Case law

Hazelton v. City of Grand Prairie, Tex.

8 F. Supp. 2d 570 · District Court, N.D. Texas · Feb 9, 1998

Thus, public officials are immune from civil-rights claims brought against them under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 if “their conduct does not violate clearly established rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … As discussed in the Court's Opinion below, the key issue for Wynne’s qualified immunity defense is whether he acted reasonably.

Adams v. Springmeyer

17 F. Supp. 3d 478 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · May 5, 2014

A federal right is “clearly established” for purposes of qualified immunity if its contours are “sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he [or she] is doing violates that right.” … The Plaintiffs cannot overcome the defense of qualified immunity by the simple expedient of “defin[ing] clearly established law at a high level of generality.”

Abudiab v. City & County

833 F. Supp. 2d 1168 · District Court, N.D. California · Jun 20, 2011

Plaintiff, in opposition, makes no argument with respect to defendants’ claim of qualified immunity, cites to no authority that would support the notion that the law was clearly established and therefore appears to concede … Accordingly, Georgopoulos is not entitled to qualified immunity because per Awabdy , it was clearly established that non-peace officers could be held liable for malicious prosecution where a “state or local official [ ] .

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.

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).

King v. Dingle

702 F. Supp. 2d 1049 · District Court, D. Minnesota · Mar 11, 2010

Qualified Immunity. … As a result, where appropriate, Courts are permitted to dispose of the qualified immunity issue on the second prong — that is, whether a violation of a clearly established constitutional right has occurred' — without considering

Spencer v. Peters

907 F. Supp. 2d 1221 · District Court, W.D. Washington · Nov 2, 2012

For all those actions not covered by absolute immunity, Peters maintains that he is entitled to qualified immunity. He' further argues that Mr. … Qualified Immunity Like Davidson and Krause, Peters argues he is entitled to qualified immunity based on: (1) probable cause, (2) Mr.

McCoy v. Burns

756 F. Supp. 2d 868 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Nov 18, 2010

In moving for summary judgment, Defendants assert the defense of qualified immunity. … Plaintiffs rights under Payton were clearly established at the time of his arrest. Accordingly, Defendants cannot enjoy qualified immunity as to Plaintiffs first claim.

Fletcher v. SCREVEN COUNTY, GA.

92 F. Supp. 2d 1377 · District Court, S.D. Georgia · Feb 9, 2000

Although it is clearly established that an arrest without probable cause is unconstitutional, Redd v. … City of Enterprise, 140 F.3d 1378 (11th Cir.1998), qualified immunity applies “if there was arguable probable cause for the arrest.” Jones v.

Parker v. Tyson Foods, Inc.

District Court, S.D. Mississippi · Jan 3, 2020

Workforce Comm’n-Civil Rights Div., 775 F.3d 685, 688 (5th Cir. 2014) (“[A]n employee’s ‘better education, work experience, and longer tenure with the company do not establish that he is clearly better qualified.’” … Parker has not established pretext by demonstrating that he was clearly more qualified for the promotion than Merrell.

Diva's, Inc. v. City of Bangor

176 F. Supp. 2d 30 · District Court, D. Maine · Dec 20, 2001

Qualified immunity applied because their actions were not such that a reasonable official would have known he was violating a clearly established right. B Street, 835 F.Supp. at 1271 (citing Anderson v. … In contrast to absolute immunity, local government officials are entitled to limited, or qualified, immu *39 nity in performing discretionary functions provided their actions “did not violate clearly established statutory

Stanfill v. Talton

851 F. Supp. 2d 1346 · District Court, M.D. Georgia · Mar 29, 2012

“Qualified immunity offers complete protection for individual public officials performing discretionary functions ‘insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … Having failed to prove a constitutional violation, the Plaintiff has not met his burden of establishing that these Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity.

Smith v. Cook

914 F. Supp. 348 · District Court, W.D. Missouri · Dec 28, 1995

The standard for determining whether defendants are entitled to qualified immunity is well established. … In addition, defendant argues she is immune from suit because her conduct did not violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights.” Harlow v.

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.

Collier v. Buckner

303 F. Supp. 3d 1232 · District Court, M.D. Alabama · Mar 27, 2018

In § 1983 actions, the doctrine of qualified immunity "offers complete protection for government officials sued in their individual capacities if their conduct 'does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … The two prongs of the qualified-immunity analysis (the merits of the underlying constitutional issue and whether the alleged constitutional right was "clearly established") may be considered in any order. Pearson v.

Bordas v. Washtenaw County

987 F. Supp. 979 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Dec 12, 1997

Qualified immunity The sheriffs deputies claim qualified immunity, and this court must address the issue as a threshold question to liability. … A claim of qualified immunity depends on whether the defendant’s conduct violated a clearly established statutory or constitutional right of which a reasonable person would have known.

Boatwright v. Jacks

239 F. Supp. 3d 229 · District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 9, 2017

In order to defeat qualified immunity at the motion to dismiss stage, plaintiff must allege facts that plausibly establish the individual defendants “knew or should have known that the action [they] took within [their] sphere … As a result, to defeat qualified immunity, a plaintiff must plead facts that establish the individuals as “plainly incompetent” or “knowingly violating] the law.”

Searles v. Pompilio

652 F. Supp. 2d 432 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jul 23, 2009

WHETHER POMPILIO IS ENTITLED TO QUALIFIED IMMUNITY Pompilio asserts that as a governmental official performing discretionary-functions, he is entitled to qualified immunity because his actions were in good faith and he had … The qualified immunity defense available to Pompilio is not available to the City. Vives v.

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 .

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.