Case law

Reinhart v. City of Schenectady Police Department

599 F. Supp. 2d 323 · District Court, N.D. New York · Feb 10, 2009

Qualified Immunity 9 Glasser and Updyke are entitled to qualified immunity if either (a) their actions did not violate clearly established law, or (b) it was objectively reasonable for them to believe that their actions did … Accordingly, Updyke is entitled to qualified immunity. D.

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.

Wilson v. City of Hazelwood, Mo.

628 F. Supp. 2d 1063 · District Court, E.D. Missouri · Apr 14, 2008

violated clearly established constitutional rights. … The court concluded that as a matter of law the undisputed facts established the first two elements of qualified immunity including that Plaintiff's constitutional rights were violated and that these rights were clearly established

Echtenkamp v. Loudon County Public Schools

263 F. Supp. 2d 1043 · District Court, E.D. Virginia · Jun 24, 2003

Qualified immunity protects government officials performing discretionary duties from civil suit so long as the officials' conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights. McVey v. … Thus, to overcome defendants' claim to qualified immunity, plaintiff must claim a violation of a right pursuant to a statute or the Constitution which is "clearly established so that an objectively, reasonable officer would

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.

Knight v. Kerstein

836 F. Supp. 2d 719 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Oct 18, 2011

In the alternative, defendants argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity. … the constitutional right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation.

Bethany T. v. Raymond School, et al.

2013 DNH 074 · District Court, D. New Hampshire · May 10, 2013

Defendants’ motion for summary judgment as to Count II is denied. 6 Qualified Immunity – Federal Law Claims The individual defendants say they are entitled to qualified immunity … Id. at § 6736(a)(2), 6736(a)(4). 7  Because there is a triable issue as to whether defendants violated Title V I , they do not qualify for Coverdell immunity, as a matter of law

Hawk v. Brosha

590 F. Supp. 337 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 11, 1984

or to qualified good faith immunity. … light of clearly established law.

Crow v. Rasmussen

District Court, D. Minnesota · May 7, 2024

Id. at 624 (“Because plaintiff cannot establish a constitutional violation, defendants are entitled to summary judgment based on qualified immunity.”). … immunity.

Carlow v. Mruk

425 F. Supp. 2d 225 · District Court, D. Rhode Island · Mar 28, 2006

“[T]he doctrine of qualified immunity protects public officials from civil liability ‘insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have … “If no constitutional right would have been violated were the allegations established, there is no necessity for further inquiries concerning qualified immunity.” Saucier v.

Lloyd v. Jefferson

53 F. Supp. 2d 643 · District Court, D. Delaware · May 12, 1999

Qualified Immunity 16 A. … Qualified Immunity: Section 1983 Claims 1.]

Manning v. Washington

463 F. Supp. 2d 1229 · District Court, W.D. Washington · Dec 1, 2006

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY The defendants contend that Troopers Clevenger and Ducommon are entitled to qualified immunity because their actions did not violate Mr. Manning’s clearly established constitutional rights. … The Court should therefore decline to hold, at this point, that the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. Defendants are not precluded from raising the issue of qualified immunity at trial. E.

Harasim v. Kuchar

702 F. Supp. 178 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Dec 2, 1988

Plaintiffs have moved to bar evidence regarding qualified immunity. The question of qualified immunity is for the court, not the jury. Rakovich v. Wade, 850 F.2d 1180, 1202-03 (7th Cir.1988) (en banc); Jones v. … As discussed above, the law necessary for holding defendants liable on Count II was clearly established by the relevant date.

Matthews v. Wiley

744 F. Supp. 2d 1159 · District Court, D. Colorado · Sep 13, 2010

Qualified Immunity To the extent that Mr. Matthews is suing Defendants in their individual capacities, Defendants raise the defense of qualified immunity. … Matthews’ transfer to ADX in 1995 because the right at issue was not clearly established at the time of the Defendants’ alleged conduct.

Florida v. United States

133 F. Supp. 2d 1280 · District Court, N.D. Florida · Mar 2, 2001

(but would be subject to the possible defense of qualified immunity). [12] B. … Jones, 515 U.S. 304 , 115 S.Ct. 2151 , 132 L.Ed.2d 238 (1995) (holding that where qualified immunity depends on disputed facts, an order denying summary judgment based on qualified immunity is not immediately appealable).

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.

Ruiz v. Herrera

745 F. Supp. 940 · District Court, S.D. New York · Aug 30, 1990

Qualified Immunity: Next, defendant police officers claim that they are entitled to qualified immunity with respect to the claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 . … Even where the law is “clearly established” and the scope of an official’s permissible conduct is “clearly defined,” the qualified immunity defense also protects an official if it was “objectively reasonable” for him at the

Oliver v. Powell

250 F. Supp. 2d 593 · District Court, E.D. Virginia · Sep 4, 2002

clearly established rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … “The threshold inquiry a court must undertake in a qualified immunity analysis is whether plaintiffs allegations, if true, establish a constitutional violation.” Hope v.

Osborne v. Howard

844 F. Supp. 511 · District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Feb 23, 1994

The test for qualified immunity is “whether a reasonable officer could have believed [the arrest] to be lawful, in light of clearly established law and the information the [arresting] officers possessed.” Arn ott v. … However, [t]his does not mean ... that courts may always decide questions of qualified immunity on summary judgment.