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.

Couzens v. City of Forest Park, OH

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Oct 26, 2023

violated a constitutional right; and (2) the right was clearly established.” … “Once the qualified immunity defense is raised, the burden is on the plaintiff to demonstrate that the officials are not entitled to qualified immunity.” Silberstein v.

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.

Chocallo v. Bureau of Hearings and Appeals, SSA

548 F. Supp. 1349 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 8, 1982

Qualified Immunity As to defendant Trachtenberg, the Director of the Bureau of Hearings and Appeals, a defense of qualified immunity applies to bar plaintiff’s claims for damages arising out of the performance of his duties … Thus, if the affidavit of Trachtenberg establishes that he acted in good faith, in accordance with the above definition, he is entitled to assert the defense of qualified immunity.

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.

Gilbert v. French

665 F. Supp. 2d 743 · District Court, S.D. Texas · Oct 19, 2009

reasonable “in light of clearly established law at the time of the conduct in question.” … The proof of record is not sufficient to overcome the officers’ assertion of qualified immunity. The Court grants Defendants Anderson and Fry summary judgment on qualified immunity. B.

Varela v. Demmon

491 F. Supp. 2d 442 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jun 14, 2007

Qualified Immunity The doctrine of qualified immunity precludes civil liability where either prison officials performing discretionary functions “did not violate clearly established law,” or “it was objectively reasonable … applicability of the qualified immunity defense only in the vaguest and most general terms.

Estate of Gilmore v. Buckley

608 F. Supp. 554 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · May 10, 1985

At a minimum, no such duty was clearly established at the time of the incidents in this case, and thus the Bridgewater defendants are immune from liability for civil damages. 12 See Harlow v. … The court found that the defendants were entitled to qualified immunity because the duty of protection was not clearly established at the time of the alleged wrongdoing. Id.

Howard v. Chester Cnty. Office of Juvenile Prob.

365 F. Supp. 3d 562 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 15, 2019

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 a reasonable *573 person would have … established" so as to deprive Defendants of qualified immunity.

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

Mann v. Darden

630 F. Supp. 2d 1305 · District Court, M.D. Alabama · Jul 2, 2009

a clearly established constitutional right. … Federal courts ask, instead, whether a clearly established right has been violated by the officer while acting within her discretionary authority. See, e.g., Hope v.

Strickland v. Inlow

348 F. Supp. 244 · District Court, W.D. Arkansas · Sep 29, 1972

In Arkansas the immunity is a qualified one by decision law and an absolute immunity by statute. In Douglass v. … This case involves the qualified immunity for school authorities acting within the scope of their authority and in the performance of their official duties.

Rivera v. Holder

District Court, District of Columbia · Oct 29, 2009

"[Q]ualified immunity protects officials from liability 'insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.'" … A qualified immunity analysis requires that the Court consider "whether the alleged facts show that the individual's conduct violated a statutory or constitutional right, and . . . whether that right was clearly established

Marrs v. Tuckey

362 F. Supp. 2d 927 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Mar 31, 2005

Within days after Plaintiff was arrested, the Sixth Circuit held that any such right was not “clearly established” for purposes of a court’s qualified immunity analysis. … established” prong of the qualified immunity inquiry.

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.

Izquierdo v. Sills

68 F. Supp. 2d 392 · District Court, D. Delaware · Aug 20, 1999

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 statutory … know that his or her specific conduct violated, clearly established rights.”

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).

Castillo v. Gardner

854 F. Supp. 725 · District Court, E.D. Washington · May 31, 1994

Defendants’ second argument for summary judgment is that they are entitled to qualified immunity from suit. … “Prison officials who have implemented a digital rectal probe policy are entitled to qualified immunity if, in light of the clearly established law at the time, a reasonable official could have believed that his conduct was

Donohoe v. Watt

546 F. Supp. 753 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 3, 1982

When violations of constitutional rights are alleged, however, the immunity of executive branch officers is qualified. It exists only to the extent the official acted reasonably and in good faith. Butz v. … The second consideration is an “objective” inquiry into the extent to which the official knew or reasonably should have known that his conduct would violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights.”

Lippman v. City of Miami

724 F. Supp. 2d 1240 · District Court, S.D. Florida · Jul 19, 2010

“[(Qualified immunity offers complete protection for government officials sued in their individual capacities as long as their conduct violates no clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … Based on Shop’s formulation of the clearly established question, the Court rejects the formulation of the clearly established question presented by Defendants. 13 .