Case law

Looney v. City of Wilmington, Del.

723 F. Supp. 1025 · District Court, D. Delaware · Oct 23, 1989

Second, the defendants allege that the city is immune from liability. Third, the defendants allege that the officers are immune from liability based on the doctrine of qualified immunity. … QUALIFIED IMMUNITY The court’s inquiry is not yet complete, however. The defendants contend that the officers are immune from suit based on the doctrine of qualified immunity.

Doe v. Ohio State Univ.

311 F. Supp. 3d 881 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Apr 24, 2018

City of Chattanooga, Tenn. , 768 F.3d 464 , 478 (6th Cir. 2014), qualified immunity shields Defendants from liability unless they "violated a clearly established constitutional right," id. at 485 . … Therefore, both are entitled to qualified immunity. B.

Johnson v. Town of Nantucket

550 F. Supp. 2d 179 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Apr 7, 2008

Qualified Immunity The Supreme Court and the First Circuit Court of Appeals have set forth a preferred procedure for the analysis of qualified immunity in § 1983 claims. *184 First, the Court must ask whether the plaintiff … Second, the Court must determine whether the right was “clearly established at the time of the alleged violation”. Abrew-Guzman, 241 F.3d at 73 .

Norris v. Davis

826 F. Supp. 212 · District Court, W.D. Kentucky · Jul 14, 1993

The Sixth Circuit has set forth a “clearly established” standard. … Qualified immunity applies, however, if in light of clearly established law, a reasonable officer would not have considered his conduct unlawful. Anderson 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.

Henry v. Sanchez

923 F. Supp. 1266 · District Court, C.D. California · Apr 7, 1996

Qualified immunity shields a public officer from a suit for damages if a reasonable officer in the defendant’s position could have believed his conduct was lawful in light of clearly established law and the information the … The qualified immunity test requires a two part analysis. First, the Court must determine whether the law governing the officer’s conduct was clearly established at the time the challenged conduct occurred.

Berg v. Glen Cove City School District

853 F. Supp. 651 · District Court, E.D. New York · Jun 1, 1994

Inoculations, in our opinion, are clearly a defilement and in direct violation of the Laws of God. Complaint ¶ 17. … Based on the record presented thus far, this Court finds that plaintiffs have establish a likelihood of success on the merits of their claim that their opposition to the required immunizations is based on beliefs which qualify

Moline v. City of Castle Rock

528 F. Supp. 2d 1102 · District Court, W.D. Washington · Dec 14, 2005

violate a clearly established constitutional right. … Defendants McNew, Queen, and McCoy are entitled to qualified immunity and to summary judgment dismissing Plaintiff Moline's claims against them.

Stanford v. United States

948 F. Supp. 2d 729 · District Court, E.D. Kentucky · May 31, 2013

Under the Comair test, Kentucky courts ask two questions to determine whether an entity such as BADD qualifies for sovereign immunity. … So the BLUE Program itself does not qualify for sovereign immunity under Comair. See 295 S.W.3d at 98-99 (holding that “purely local” concerns do not qualify for sovereign immunity).

Ashiegbu v. Purviance

74 F. Supp. 2d 740 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Dec 17, 1998

Qualified Immunity Last, Defendant claims that she is entitled to qualified immunity for her actions with respect to Plaintiffs claims. … As the Supreme Court noted, “[u]nless the plaintiffs allegations state a claim of violation of clearly established law, a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal before the commencement of trial.”

Theyerl v. Manitowoc County

41 F. Supp. 3d 737 · District Court, E.D. Wisconsin · Aug 19, 2014

Qualified Immunity Finally, Hansen argues he is entitled to qualified immunity because his conduct did not violate clearly established constitutional rights. Harlow v. … To qualify as “clearly established,” the right must' be “particularized” in the sense that “[t]he contours of the right [were] sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he [was] doing violate

Wilkins v. District of Columbia

District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 30, 2020

Qualified Immunity Officers are entitled to qualified immunity “under § 1983 unless (1) they violated a federal statutory or constitutional right, and (2) the unlawfulness of their conduct was ‘clearly established … Because Defendants’ take down of Plaintiff did not violate clearly established law, Defendants are shielded by qualified immunity.

Chachas v. City of Ely, Nev.

615 F. Supp. 2d 1193 · District Court, D. Nevada · Mar 31, 2009

With regard to qualified immunity, this doctrine protects state officials from civil liability for damages resulting from discretionary acts, so long as those acts do not violate clearly established constitutional or statutory … “If the law did not put the officer on notice that his conduct would be clearly unlawful, summary judgment based on qualified immunity is appropriate.” Id. at 202, 121 S.Ct. 2151 .

Anderson v. United States

107 F. Supp. 2d 191 · District Court, E.D. New York · May 18, 2000

A claim of qualified immunity in a Bivens action is considered under the same standards as a qualified immunity defense in a Section 1983 case. Wilson, 526 U.S. at 609 , 119 S.Ct. 1692 ; Jones v. New York State Div. … clearly established at the time of the alleged violation.

Ruegsegger v. JEFFERSON COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT R-1

187 F. Supp. 2d 1284 · District Court, D. Colorado · Nov 27, 2001

Qualified Immunity The individual School Defendants maintain they are entitled to qualified immunity from Claim Two because the contours of the pertinent law were not clearly established on April 20, 1999. … Qualified immunity also attached for the reasons stated in Castaldo . 2.

Whittington v. Vaughn

289 F. Supp. 2d 621 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 3, 2003

The Commonwealth defendants, as state officials, are entitled to the protection of qualified immunity. … Qualified immunity protects government officials from damages liability in § 1983 suits unless there has been a constitutional violation of a clearly established right. Conn v.

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

Dodd v. Doe

118 F. Supp. 2d 777 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Aug 14, 2000

In the present motion, the Defendants assert that they are shielded from liability under the doctrine of qualified immunity. … Specifically, the Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity for the routine aspect of the challenged search, but is not entitled to qualified immunity for the non-routine portion. IT IS SO ORDERED. .

Lash v. Lemke

971 F. Supp. 2d 85 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 20, 2013

Those entitled to qualified immunity have "immunity from suit rather than a mere defense to liability." Hunter v. Bryant, 502 U.S. 224, 227 (1991) (internal quotation omitted). … Accordingly, to defeat a government official's claim of qualified immunity, a plaintiff must show both (1) that the facts alleged or shown make out a violation of a constitutional right, and (2) that the right was clearly

Clair v. Northern Kentucky Independent Health District

504 F. Supp. 2d 206 · District Court, E.D. Kentucky · Sep 19, 2006

“The doctrine of qualified immunity generally shields state actors from liability under § 1983 based on their discretionary acts.” Thomas, 304 F.3d at 568 . … However, immunity in this context is “qualified” because “government actors my lose this immunity when they violate clearly established constitutional rights which a reasonable person should have known.”