Case law

Fender v. Kansas Social & Rehabilitation Services

168 F. Supp. 2d 1216 · District Court, D. Kansas · Feb 2, 2001

freedoms.” 4 “Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established … Accordingly defendant Seymour-Hunter is entitled to qualified immunity.

Like v. Carter

353 F. Supp. 405 · District Court, E.D. Missouri · Jan 16, 1973

Basically, plaintiffs seek judicial relief providing for payment of welfare benefits to qualified applicants to begin no later than the thirty-first day after filing an application for such payments, and also the payment … Clearly, these payments would be a liability of the state and would be payable out of state funds.

Nicholas v. Bratton

376 F. Supp. 3d 232 · District Court, S.D. Illinois · Mar 26, 2019

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 … established" for purposes of qualified immunity, the right must be " 'clearly established' in a more particularized, and hence more relevant, sense."

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.

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.

Bunyon v. Burke County

285 F. Supp. 2d 1310 · District Court, S.D. Georgia · Sep 30, 2003

Morgan and Anderson each seek qualified immunity. (Doc. No. 53 at 19-20.) … Stated differently, “[w]hen a state or federal official asserts qualified immunity, he claims that his actions were reasonable in light of clearly established law.” Nevada v.

Maye v. Vargas

638 F. Supp. 2d 256 · District Court, D. Connecticut · Jul 29, 2009

Thus, even if the individual officers committed constitutional violations, they are still entitled to judgment in their favor if they did not violate clearly established rights, about which a reasonable officer would have … Although qualified immunity is a question of law, because issue of reasonableness depends on the facts of the situation, if there is a dispute as to the facts, that must be resolved by the factfinder before qualified immunity

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

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.

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 .

DePoutot v. Raffaelly

2005 DNH 039 · District Court, D. New Hampshire · Mar 3, 2005

Qualified Immunity. … Qualified immunity protects "government officials performing discretionary functions . . . from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate 21 clearly established

Ghaster v. City of Rocky River

913 F. Supp. 2d 443 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Sep 26, 2012

The defense of qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions where their “conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights which a reasonable person would … The two-part test for qualified immunity asks (1) whether the facts that a plaintiff has alleged a violation of a constitutional right; and (2) if so, whether the right at issue was clearly established at the time of the

McCann v. Ruiz

788 F. Supp. 109 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Feb 11, 1992

Qualified Immunity The RUM-related defendants contend that, to the extent they are being sued in their individual capacities, they are entitled to the protections of a qualified immunity. … The doctrine of qualified immunity insulates government actors in the exercise of discretionary powers from civil liability insofar as their conduct does not abridge clearly established federal rights about which a reasonably

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

Salazar v. Burresch

47 F. Supp. 2d 1105 · District Court, C.D. California · Apr 28, 1999

An officer is entitled to qualified immunity if, "in light of clearly established principles governing the conduct in question, the officer objectively could have believed that his conduct was lawful.” Act Up! … While Plaintiff bears the burden of showing that the law was clearly established (Collins v.

WILKINSON BY AND THROUGH WILKINSON v. Russell

973 F. Supp. 437 · District Court, D. Vermont · Jul 31, 1997

Defendants contend that Russell's statements were privileged under the doctrines of judicial immunity and state qualified immunity. … State Qualified Immunity In Vermont, qualified immunity attaches to lower-level state employees who are "`1) acting during their employment and acting, or reasonably believing they are acting, within the scope of their authority

Medina v. O'NEILL

589 F. Supp. 1028 · District Court, S.D. Texas · May 7, 1984

Finally, defendants aver that the doctrine of qualified immunity shields the good faith acts of the individually named federal defendants because their conduct did not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … Once the defendants establish this defense, the burden then shifts to the plaintiffs to prove that the defendants’ actions violated clearly established law. Harlow v.

Equus Associates Ltd. v. Town of Southampton

975 F. Supp. 454 · District Court, E.D. New York · Aug 27, 1997

Qualified immunity The defendants further move for summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity. … Even where the plaintiffs rights and the scope of the officials’ permissible conduct are clearly established, the qualified immunity defense protects a governmental actor if it was “objectively reasonable” for the actor to

Howe v. Town of North Andover

854 F. Supp. 2d 131 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Apr 11, 2012

The judicially en-grafted doctrine of qualified immunity shields police officers from § 1983 liability if the constitutional right at issue was not “clearly established” at the time of the alleged violation. … In the unlikely event that a constitutional violation could be proved against either of them, qualified immunity would shield them from liability.

Amvets Post 711 v. Rutter

863 F. Supp. 2d 670 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Mar 29, 2012

Qualified immunity is a longstanding doctrine which “protects government officials ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … My analysis of qualified immunity is two-pronged: first, I must decide whether the plaintiff has alleged a violation of a constitutional right; and second, whether the right at issue was clearly established at the time of