Case law

Turton v. City of Atlanta

738 F. Supp. 1419 · District Court, N.D. Georgia · Mar 28, 1990

An individual officer is entitled to qualified immunity insofar as his conduct does not violate clearly established constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. Harlow v. … It seems that the qualified immunity analysis — whether a reasonable officer could have believed the seizure at issue was not excessive (unreasonable) in light of clearly established law and the information known to the officer

DT v. Somers Central School District

588 F. Supp. 2d 485 · District Court, S.D. New York · Nov 24, 2008

Accordingly, Perrella is entitled to qualified immunity. … Therefore, Horisk is entitled to qualified immunity.

Gilbert v. Federal Deposit Insurance

950 F. Supp. 1194 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 3, 1997

Gilbert’s claim is not tenable because the executed settlement agreement clearly does not provide for prejudgment interest. … Gilbert has failed to establish that she qualifies for relief under the Back Pay Act. 7 . It is plaintiff's burden to establish that she is a "prevailing party.” Environmental Defense Fund, Inc. v.

Hauge v. Brandywine School District

131 F. Supp. 2d 573 · District Court, D. Delaware · Feb 13, 2001

Qualified immunity The individual defendants argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity from suit for any alleged violation of Hauge’s First Amendment rights. … Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, “government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from lia *584 bility for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established

Moore v. University of Kansas

118 F. Supp. 3d 1242 · District Court, D. Kansas · Jul 28, 2015

“The doctrine of qualified immunity shields government officials from liability, ..., when ‘their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known … clearly established at the time of defendant’s alleged misconduct.”

Maddux v. District of Columbia

144 F. Supp. 3d 131 · District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 16, 2015

Saucier inquiry: whether the constitutional right violated was “clearly established.” … immunity.

Knight v. Davies

804 F. Supp. 182 · District Court, D. Kansas · Sep 17, 1992

in their individual capacities, the court finds these defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. … Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 , 102 S.Ct. 2727, 2738 , 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982) (government official immune from liability if conduct alleged in the complaint did not violate “clearly established, statutory or constitutional

Higazy v. Millennium Hotel and Resorts

346 F. Supp. 2d 430 · District Court, S.D. New York · Sep 30, 2004

Templeton’s actions thus were not “objectively unreasonable in light of clearly established law,” Ford v. Moore, 237 F.3d at 162 , and Agent Tem-pleton is entitled to qualified immunity. 4. … In these circumstances Templeton is clearly entitled to the benefit of the qualified immunity defense.

Mazzeo v. Gibbons

649 F. Supp. 2d 1182 · District Court, D. Nevada · Jun 29, 2009

Qualified Immunity Defendants Young and Metro argue they are immune from suit under the doctrine of qualified immunity. … right was clearly established.

Newkirk v. Sheers

834 F. Supp. 772 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 16, 1993

In applying the doctrine of qualified immunity to the facts of a given case, a court must grant immunity to a government official performing discretionary functions “insofar as [her] conduct does not violate clearly established … In some cases, the qualified immunity issue also has rested on “the complementary question of whether defendant had a clearly 'established duty towards plaintiff.” Ryan v.

Avalon Carriage Service Inc. v. City of St. Augustine

417 F. Supp. 2d 1279 · District Court, M.D. Florida · Feb 23, 2006

As a result, Plaintiff argues Defendants Harass and Litzinger acted beyond the scope of their authority and have violated clearly established law and qualified immunity is not proper. ii. … The Court’s Analysis The defense of qualified immunity protects “government officials performing discretionary functions from suit in their individual capacities unless their conduct violates ‘clearly established statutory

Bahr v. County of Martin

771 F. Supp. 970 · District Court, D. Minnesota · Jul 16, 1991

Public officials have immunity against civil actions under federal common law unless their conduct violates “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … As a result, the record does not clearly establish the existence of probable cause. 4 .

Downing v. West Haven Board of Ed.

162 F. Supp. 2d 19 · District Court, D. Connecticut · Aug 24, 2001

reasonable in light of clearly established law at the time. … Accordingly, the defendants' concerns about violating the Establishment Clause carry greater weight. 6 . The federal qualified immunity defense arising under Harlow v.

Ryan v. City of Detroit

174 F. Supp. 3d 964 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Mar 30, 2016

both a constitutional violation and that the violated right was clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct, the doctrine of qualified immunity shields Defendants from civil liability. … Based upon that conclusion, the Court grants Defendants’ motion based on qualified immunity, without addressing the “clearly established right” component. A.

Jones v. Harris

665 F. Supp. 2d 384 · District Court, S.D. New York · Oct 13, 2009

Defendants have also moved, in the alternative, for summary judgment dismissing plaintiffs’ claims on the ground of qualified immunity. … It is no defense to a claim of qualified immunity that the defendant did not do what plaintiff said he did.

Pierce v. Smith

347 F. Supp. 2d 1143 · District Court, M.D. Alabama · Mar 22, 2004

“Qualified immunity protects government officials performing discretionary functions from civil trials (and the other burdens of litigation, including discovery) and from liability if their conduct violates no ‘clearly established … that right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation.”

Ruble v. Escola

898 F. Supp. 2d 956 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Sep 28, 2012

For the reasons that follow, the Court denies in part Defendant England’s motion for qualified immunity and state immunity. … The parties addressed qualified immunity issues in their briefings. ECF No. 38 at 11; 42 at 11; 44 at 17-18. .

Davis v. Cheltenham Township Police Department

767 F. Supp. 104 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 22, 1991

On the facts as alleged, the defense of qualified immunity cannot succeed. … Accepting as true the complaint’s factual allegations, as is required on this motion, defendants’ qualified immunity defense cannot be sustained. 3 V.

Hall v. Raech

677 F. Supp. 2d 784 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 7, 2010

They also invoke the defense of qualified immunity, arguing that even if plaintiffs evidence is sufficient to show a constitutional violation, the right *791 infringed was not clearly established at the time of the incident … Qualified Immunity Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, “officers performing discretionary functions are ‘shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory

Peterson v. Christensen

455 F. Supp. 1095 · District Court, E.D. Wisconsin · Aug 16, 1978

In Wood , the court held that a qualified immunity from liability for damages is available to members of the executive branch of government. In Scheuer v. … In addition, since the reasonableness and necessity for the DNR regulation has not yet been made, the right of the Chippewa to be free from this type of regulation cannot be said to be “clearly established” at this time,