Case law

Dormu v. District of Columbia

District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 7, 2011

If no constitutional right was violated, qualified immunity is appropriate. Id. … Under the second step of the qualified immunity analysis, the officers would nonetheless be immune from suit if Dormu’s Fourth Amendment rights were not clearly established at the time of the arrest.

Coles v. Eagle

753 F. Supp. 2d 1092 · District Court, D. Hawaii · Nov 12, 2010

Qualified Immunity “Qualified immunity entitles [police officers] not to stand trial or face the other burdens of litigation’ on [a constitutional] claim, provided their conduct did not violate a clearly established federal … The court asks two questions when analyzing whether qualified immunity applies: (1) was there a violation of a constitutional right, and (2) was the right at issue "clearly established" such that it would have been clear

Lockhart-Bembery v. Town of Wayland Police Department

404 F. Supp. 2d 373 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Dec 7, 2005

Defendants offered eight affirmative defenses ranging from failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted to qualified immunity. The case was removed by the defendants to this Court on March 24, 2004. … Qualified Immunity In § 1983 actions, the defense of qualified immunity shields a government official performing discretionary functions from civil damages “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory

Burton v. Cameron County, Tex.

884 F. Supp. 234 · District Court, S.D. Texas · Apr 24, 1995

Stern pleaded qualified immunity as a defense. He did. The second question is whether Mr. … In failing to establish that his Fourteenth Amendment right to reasonable medical care was violated, Mr. Burton has failed to overcome Dr. Stern’s qualified immunity defense.

Gonser v. Twiggs County

182 F. Supp. 2d 1253 · District Court, M.D. Georgia · Jan 9, 2002

In Their Individual Capacities Qualified immunity protects government officials unless they violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. … Second, they are also entitled to qualified immunity.

Estate of Hernandez-Rojas ex rel. Hernandez v. United States

62 F. Supp. 3d 1169 · District Court, S.D. California · Sep 29, 2014

Qualified Immunity The doctrine of qualified immunity shields government officials from civil liability so long as their conduct does not violate clearly established constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would … Further, that right was clearly established at the time of the incident. Accordingly,' none of the defendants are entitled to summary judgment on qualified immunity. B.

MacFarlane v. Kenison

District Court, D. New Hampshire · Aug 31, 1999

Qualified Immunity. … To undermine Kenison's invocation of qualified immunity, MacFarlane must first demonstrate that the constitutional right allegedly infringed was "clearly established." See generally Anderson v.

Goodwin v. District of Columbia

District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 13, 2022

Mem. at 8. 5 The qualified immunity doctrine shields government officials sued in actions under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 “‘from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … Government officers are entitled to qualified immunity “unless (1) they violated a federal statutory or constitutional right, and (2) the unlawfulness of their conduct was ‘clearly established at the time.’”

Woods v. Town of Danville, WV

712 F. Supp. 2d 502 · District Court, S.D. West Virginia · May 14, 2010

Jarrett asserts that qualified immunity precludes the claims against him. a. … Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity is meant to “strike [ ] a balance between compensating those who have been injured by official conduct and protecting the government’s ability to perform its traditional functions.”

Halcomb v. Ravenal

344 F. Supp. 3d 844 · District Court, D. South Carolina · Sep 30, 2018

Therefore, Defendant is entitled to qualified immunity." (ECF No. 51 at 21.) However, the court finds there are triable issues of fact as to whether Defendant is entitled to qualified immunity. See Tolan v. … Accordingly, *856 the court finds Defendant is not entitled to qualified immunity. IV.

Lukos v. Bettencourt

23 F. Supp. 2d 175 · District Court, D. Connecticut · Sep 18, 1998

Qualified Immunity Moreover, at a minimum, the defendants, who were sued only in their individual capacities, are entitled to qualified immunity. … The Supreme Court long ago established that officers performing discretionary functions are shielded from liability so long as them conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which

Brewer v. Kamas

533 F. Supp. 2d 318 · District Court, W.D. New York · Feb 7, 2008

The doctrine of qualified immunity “shields a government official acting in an official capacity from suit for damages under § 1983 unless the official ‘violated clearly established rights of which an objectively reasonable … Here, the record before the court fails to establish that qualified immunity shields Defendants from the instant litigation.

Knuemann v. Naranjo

378 F. Supp. 104 · District Court, D. Maryland · Jun 25, 1974

Justice Brennan with his approach of qualified privilege, would find themselves sympathetic to the application of the privilege on the Ruderer facts. … We would like to be on record as expressing our concern for a person who is clearly troubled.

Murphy v. McClendon

712 F. Supp. 921 · District Court, N.D. Georgia · Apr 8, 1988

Good faith immunity protects government officials from individual civil liability for their discretionary acts “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … Because the rights violated were not clearly established at that time, the qualified immunity defense of defendants Johnson and McClendon entitles them to summary judgment on the Fourth Amendment and substantive due process

Jackson v. Brickey

771 F. Supp. 2d 593 · District Court, W.D. Virginia · Feb 11, 2011

A Officer Brickey moves to dismiss based on the doctrine of qualified immunity. … Consequently, qualified immunity attaches when the government actor’s conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v.

Salim v. Mitchell

268 F. Supp. 3d 1132 · District Court, E.D. Washington · Aug 7, 2017

The Court construed a private contractor’s immunity as “qualified” and it may be. overcome “if the defendant knew or should have known that his conduct violated a right clearly established at the time of the episode in suit … Yoo, 678 F.3d 748 (9th Cir. 2012), where the court found Deputy Assistant Attorney General John Yoo was entitled to qualified immunity because it was not clearly established in 2001-2003 that the treatment which Padilla alleged

Liverman v. City of Petersburg

106 F. Supp. 3d 744 · District Court, E.D. Virginia · May 6, 2015

“Qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions from personal-capacity li *768 ability for civil damages under § 1983, insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … understood that his conduct violated that clearly established law.

Covell v. MENKIS

574 F. Supp. 2d 874 · District Court, C.D. Illinois · Aug 5, 2008

The Defendants also allege the ambiguity bolsters their claim they are entitled to qualified immunity since any lack of clarity would show that they did not violate any clearly established constitutional rights. … Fourth, the Defendants allege that qualified immunity is appropriate because it was not clearly established that the conduct in question violated Covell’s constitutional rights.

Olynick v. Taylor County

643 F. Supp. 1100 · District Court, W.D. Wisconsin · Sep 23, 1986

Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 , 102 S.Ct. 2727 , 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982), a public official is entitled to good faith immunity unless his actions violated the clearly established constitutional rights of the plaintiff. … Accordingly, defendant Palmer is entitled to qualified immunity and his motion for summary judgment will be granted.

Waterstraat v. Central State Hospital

533 F. Supp. 274 · District Court, W.D. Virginia · Feb 12, 1982

Defendants further contend that they acted in good faith and are thus entitled to qualified immunity. … The record clearly shows that plaintiff has been deprived of property whether through a negligent or intentional deprivation.