Case law

Wiesman v. Hill

629 F. Supp. 2d 106 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Mar 24, 2009

The doctrine of qualified immunity protects public employees “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … Accordingly, the Court will not dismiss the complaint based on the doctrine of qualified immunity at this stage of the proceeding.

Carrasquillo-Gonzalez v. Sagardia-De-Jesus

723 F. Supp. 2d 428 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Jul 14, 2010

Qualified Immunity The Court determined in its Opinion and Order (Docket #23) that there were no grounds for conferring qualified immunity upon the Defendants. … As stated previously, qualified immunity cannot therefore be conferred upon Carbonell and Cintron. Their qualified immunity claims are hereby DENIED.

Huminski v. Rutland County

148 F. Supp. 2d 373 · District Court, D. Vermont · Jun 5, 2001

The well-established doctrine of judicial immunity entitles judges defending against § 1983 suits to absolute immunity from damages stemming from conduct performed in a judicial capacity. Fields v. … Alternatively, Corsones and Zimmerman argue that the doctrine of qualified immunity protects them from suit should the Court find that they are not entitled to absolute immunity.

Jones v. City of Wilmington

299 F. Supp. 2d 380 · District Court, D. Delaware · Jan 8, 2004

Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, “government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages in so far as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … The Third Circuit has said that in determining whether qualified immunity applies, the issue is “whether a reasonable public official would know that his or her specific conduct violated clearly established rights.”

Robinson v. St. Tammany Parish Public School System

983 F. Supp. 2d 835 · District Court, E.D. Louisiana · Oct 18, 2013

Darouse is Not Entitled to Qualified Immunity. … Robinson argues that Darouse cannot be entitled to qualified immunity because a reasonable person in his position “would have known — and should have known— that he was in stark violation of clearly established law.” 32 Specifically

Burr v. Burns

439 F. Supp. 2d 779 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Jul 7, 2006

in light of the clearly establish constitutional rights.” … Thus, the question of whether Officers Burns and Marti are shielded from liability under the doctrine of qualified immunity turns on (1) whether the rights were clearly established to the extent that Officers Burns and Marti

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

Howard v. North Mississippi Medical Center

939 F. Supp. 505 · District Court, N.D. Mississippi · Sep 5, 1996

Even assuming, however, that Howard met the ADA definition of disabled, she could not establish an ADA violation. In regard to her dismissal as a health care provider, Howard was not qualified to do the job. … Howard claims she was qualified for the positions, including the two in which she was denied interviews. The Medical Center argues that “more” qualified individuals were hired into the positions.

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.

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.

Grant v. City of Syracuse

357 F. Supp. 3d 180 · District Court, N.D. New York · Feb 8, 2019

(c) Qualified Immunity . … Grant's clearly established rights, and therefore, they were not entitled to qualified immunity with regards to Mr. Grant's false arrest claims.

McCartney v. Barg

643 F. Supp. 1181 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Apr 3, 1986

First, the Supreme Court’s decision in Youngberg which clearly established the rights at issue herein was published on June 18, 1982. … Since the law giving rise to the rights at issue here was clearly established when some or all of the operative events occurred herein, and the complaint alleges violations of these rights, the good faith immunity defense

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

Donahoe v. Arpaio

986 F. Supp. 2d 1091 · District Court, D. Arizona · Dec 5, 2013

clearly established.” … Clearly established right As discussed above, Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity if, viewing the facts in the light most favorable to Stapley, they did not violate a clearly established constitutional right.

Borkholder v. Lemmon

983 F. Supp. 2d 1013 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Oct 24, 2013

Qualified immunity protects government officials so long as their conduct did not violate a clearly established statutory or constitutional right *1020 of which a reasonable person would have known. Pearson v. … Here, the defendants argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity because Borkholder “has pointed to no case that would establish the rights at issue.” (DE 25 at 12.)

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.

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.

Garza v. United States

881 F. Supp. 1099 · District Court, S.D. Texas · Jan 19, 1995

The Court must evaluate the objective reasonableness of the Defendants’ actions assessed in the light of “clearly established” legal rules existing at the time. Johnston v. … Moreover, for purposes of the qualified immunity defense, the Court must consider the status of the law in March 1992, when this incident occurred.

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. .