Case law

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.

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).

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

Heiar v. Crawford County, Wis.

558 F. Supp. 1175 · District Court, W.D. Wisconsin · Apr 14, 1983

LEGISLATIVE IMMUNITY Plaintiffs contend that individual members of the County Board should receive, at best, only qualified good-faith immunity for the acts described in the amended complaint. See Harlow v. … The setting of property tax assessments is surely not a “legislative” function; qualified good faith immunity is appropriate for a tax official performing such administrative duties.

Suarez Cestero v. Pagan Rosa

167 F. Supp. 2d 173 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Jul 20, 2001

However, it is clearly established that a district court is afforded great discretion in entering default. See 10A Charles A. Wright, Arthur R. … Preclusion and Qualified Immunity Defendants' have also moved to dismiss on the basis of preclusion and qualified immunity.

MACEACHERN v. City of Manhattan Beach

623 F. Supp. 2d 1092 · District Court, C.D. California · Jun 8, 2009

The Supreme Court has set forth a two-part analysis for considering the issue of qualified immunity. … “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 .

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

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.

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.

Spadaro v. City of Miramar

855 F. Supp. 2d 1317 · District Court, S.D. Florida · Feb 29, 2012

Qualified immunity “offers complete protection for government officials sued in their individual capacities if their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … A motion to dismiss will be granted on qualified immunity grounds if “the complaint fails to allege the violation of a clearly established constitutional right.” Id. (internal citations and quotations omitted).

Young v. Sunbury Police Department

160 F. Supp. 3d 802 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 3, 2016

Count III Defendants also seek dismissal of the Section 1983 claims against Officers Heck-man and Blaise on the theory that the officers are entitled to qualified immunity because their conduct was not clearly unlawful. … established.” 59 A right is clearly established if “a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that right.” 60 “[E]xisting precedent must have placed the statutory or constitutional question beyond

Jones v. Burtlow

District Court, D. Colorado · Oct 14, 2021

Defendant asserts the defense of qualified immunity, arguing both that Plaintiff has not stated a constitutional violation nor pointed to a right that is clearly established. … Accordingly, Plaintiff cannot point to a clearly established right, and Defendant is entitled to qualified immunity. B.

Shelly v. Johnson

684 F. Supp. 941 · District Court, W.D. Michigan · Aug 14, 1987

These factors are clearly not present in the case of prison hearing officers under Michigan law. … The decision states that “it is the law of this Circuit that prison officials who conduct administrative hearings are entitled only to qualified immunity.” 760 F.2d at 94 .

Schor v. NORTH BRADDOCK BOROUGH

801 F. Supp. 2d 369 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 12, 2011

However, “[a]t the 12(b)(6) stage, qualified immunity will be found ‘only when the immunity is established on the face of the complaint.’ ” Cunningham v. N. … In other words, if on the face of the complaint, Plaintiff “fails to state a claim of a violation of a clearly established law, ‘a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal before the commencement of

Ivester v. Lee

991 F. Supp. 1113 · District Court, E.D. Missouri · Jan 26, 1998

The doctrine of qualified immunity provides that government officials performing discretionary functions are generally shielded from liability for civil claims insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established … Even if probable cause is lacking, these defendants are entitled to qualified immunity if a reasonable officer could have believed plaintiff's arrest was lawful, in light of clearly established law and the information the

Thomas

District Court, N.D. Mississippi · May 8, 2026

qualified immunity. … Qualified immunity shields government officials such as Scott from civil liability “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have

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

Dallam v. Cumberland Valley School District

391 F. Supp. 358 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 20, 1975

the issue at hand in no way qualifies as an “immunity” within the meaning of § 1983. … Insofar as Goss turns on the magnitude of the injury it clearly is distinguishable from the case at bar.